A quote from Kevin Myers in the Indo a while back:
"I hate to criticise a multinational, because generally speaking I am a great fan of multinationals (they being the basis of our present prosperity) but I have to say that Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows."
He nearly got his wish today:
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/aug2008/img_0345.jpg (http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/aug2008/img_0345.jpg)
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the protestors, this is crazy stuff - even more so when you consider that the machine in question is part of a huge excavation boat that is digging a trench to bury the pipe with the sand being placed into the boat and stored further out at sea until the pipe is laid.
I visited the area for the first time about 2 weeks ago - both sides of the Bay. I dare anyone who is happy to see Shell proceed to visit the area and not ask themselves a few question as to what the hell is going on there.
Shell to Sea website always an interesting read .... http://www.corribsos.com/ (http://www.corribsos.com/)
Quote from: blast05 on August 21, 2008, 11:09:36 PM
A quote from Kevin Myers in the Indo a while back:
"I hate to criticise a multinational, because generally speaking I am a great fan of multinationals (they being the basis of our present prosperity) but I have to say that Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows."
Kevin Myers is an evil SOAB!!! He knows to well Shell have a history of executing those who protest against their 'progress'.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n1_v60/ai_17963624
Myers should be locked up for saying that.
Those pipes are being laid still without planning permission.
One law for us, one law for a foreign multinational to whom we give away our only natural resourse for apparently nothing.
Unfortuneately we were sold down the river 20 years ago when Ray Burke I think said to Shell et al, go on, explore and if you find anything, take it all and at least give us a few jobs. 30 to 40 maybe.
I know then we didn't have the money or expertise to go searching but we should have at least said the Irish government should receive some of the bounty.
Kevin Myers :( At least when he wrote for the Irish Times he didn't have the same readership.
Have the Shell to Sea people finally figured out what they want? I'll have a look at their website.
Quote from: Zapatista on August 22, 2008, 09:13:34 AM
Quote from: blast05 on August 21, 2008, 11:09:36 PM
A quote from Kevin Myers in the Indo a while back:
"I hate to criticise a multinational, because generally speaking I am a great fan of multinationals (they being the basis of our present prosperity) but I have to say that Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows."
Kevin Myers is an evil SOAB!!! He knows to well Shell have a history of executing those who protest against their 'progress'.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n1_v60/ai_17963624
Myers should be locked up for saying that.
SOAB ??
Son of a bitch.
When the Irish Independant called for the swift execution of the 1916 leaders they were granted their wish. Perhaps Myers will get his through the Independant now too.
This is a continuing disgrace and evidence of our loss of sovereignty as a nation. We are neutered.
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 22, 2008, 11:32:45 AM
This is a continuing disgrace and evidence of our loss of sovereignty as a nation. We are neutered.
Why have Shell got us by the bollox ?
Quote from: orangeman on August 22, 2008, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 22, 2008, 11:32:45 AM
This is a continuing disgrace and evidence of our loss of sovereignty as a nation. We are neutered.
Why have Shell got us by the bollox ?
Ray Burke sold them our Natural resources in the FF tent at the Galway races for a few magic beans. Bertie has been up every beanstalk in north Dublin looking for him though.
Tis how it is going. It won't matter if Ireland is ever united as it will never be owned by the Irish people. Our water, gas, trees homes etc will all be owned by foreign multinationals and share holders. Connolly was right in what he said about removing the flag. Perhaps that's why the Independant had him executed.
Nice to see Zaptista condemning executions :-*
I don't know the ins and outs of Corrib but as for the "selling our soul" stuff, I happened to see one contract a MNC had with the government in relation to exploiting a gas field in Ireland. Now I've no idea if it was the standard type of thing the govt enter into or a one-off, but I'd guess they largely stick with the same formula. As part of the agreement the company is to pay an annual royalty to the govt, and together with normal corporation tax, it would bring the company's effective tax rate to 40% (bear in mind most trading companies in Ireland pay 12.5%). Given its the company (and not the taxpayer) who has to plough in the millions to extract anything and the company (not the taxpayer) who takes the risk, I think its a fair deal for everyone.
Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.
Quote from: Hound on August 22, 2008, 01:15:10 PM
Nice to see Zaptista condemning executions :-*
Am I being Ironic or hypocritical Hound? ;)
Quote from: Hound on August 22, 2008, 01:15:10 PM
Nice to see Zaptista condemning executions :-*
I don't know the ins and outs of Corrib but as for the "selling our soul" stuff, I happened to see one contract a MNC had with the government in relation to exploiting a gas field in Ireland. Now I've no idea if it was the standard type of thing the govt enter into or a one-off, but I'd guess they largely stick with the same formula. As part of the agreement the company is to pay an annual royalty to the govt, and together with normal corporation tax, it would bring the company's effective tax rate to 40% (bear in mind most trading companies in Ireland pay 12.5%). Given its the company (and not the taxpayer) who has to plough in the millions to extract anything and the company (not the taxpayer) who takes the risk, I think its a fair deal for everyone.
Not only will Shell pay no roylaties on the Corrib field but in 2006 (in fairness to Ray Burke in the 1980s 50 jobs would have been worth it) Noel Dempsey signed two new deals identical to the 1980s deals for gasfields off Sligo and Donegal.
It'll be interesting to see the reaction if they try to build a refinery at the foot of Benbulben........without f**king planning permission.
Shell started the onshore pipeline, the refinery and the offshore pipeline all without planning permission. Only uber citizens such as Michael McDowell can blatently ignore the planning laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrib_Gas_Field
For an honest unbiased history of the saga!
I see Maire Harrington is on day 3 of her hunger strike - saying she will continue until such time as the pipe laying vessel the Solitaire leaves Irish territorial waters (in Killybegs at the moment). She may come accross as a bit of a crack pot in some regards but she has to be admired for standing up for what is a real cause, despite the fact that the whole case of the Shell to Sea campaign is being made more difficult by the influx of the rent a mob hippies and the shockingly biased coverage in the media where not one peice of real investigaive journalism has been carried out on the whole project.
QuoteI see Maire Harrington is on day 3 of her hunger strike - saying she will continue until such time as the pipe laying vessel the Solitaire leaves Irish territorial waters (in Killybegs at the moment). She may come accross as a bit of a crack pot in some regards but she has to be admired for standing up for what is a real cause,
I heard that this morning on the radio and I do admire her for what she is doing but I was saddened by it. Saddened that someone feels they have to go to these lengths and more saddened because I think it will have zero impact on the decision makers in their ivory towers.
Quotethe Shell to Sea campaign is being made more difficult by the influx of the rent a mob hippies and the shockingly biased coverage in the media where not one peice of real investigaive journalism has been carried out on the whole project.
Yes and its a shocking indictment of our so called democracy.
Quote from: Zapatista on August 22, 2008, 09:13:34 AM
Quote from: blast05 on August 21, 2008, 11:09:36 PM
A quote from Kevin Myers in the Indo a while back:
"I hate to criticise a multinational, because generally speaking I am a great fan of multinationals (they being the basis of our present prosperity) but I have to say that Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows."
Kevin Myers is an evil SOAB!!! He knows to well Shell have a history of executing those who protest against their 'progress'.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n1_v60/ai_17963624
Myers should be locked up for saying that.
zapa, the nigerian government murdered saro-wiwa for their own perverted reasons and your smart enough to know that. but instead you twist it for your own arguments and do his memory a disservice. k myres is pretty good at that too
Quote from: muppet on August 22, 2008, 09:36:04 AM
Those pipes are being laid still without planning permission.
One law for us, one law for a foreign multinational to whom we give away our only natural resourse for apparently nothing.
You dont need planning permission to lay gas pipes. Co's have a statutory right to do so.
Quote from: ludermor on August 22, 2008, 01:19:13 PM
Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.
Totally wrong
You dont purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.
QuoteYou dont need planning permission to lay gas pipes. Co's have a statutory right to do so.
I see, so any company that feels like it can lay high pressure gas pipes through my front garden without even asking me ?????
QuoteHound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.
......
.....
Totally wrong
You dont purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.
Look, whatever BGE or whoever did their thing is immaterial. The
fact is that Shell got a CPO to buy private land .... this is the first time in the history of the state that a private company has been given a CPO.
Quotethe Shell to Sea campaign is being made more difficult by the influx of the rent a mob hippies and the shockingly biased coverage in the media where not one peice of real investigaive journalism has been carried out on the whole project.
Well said Blast.
Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?
Quote from: Armaghtothebone on September 13, 2008, 05:33:32 PM
Quote from: ludermor on August 22, 2008, 01:19:13 PM
Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.
Totally wrong
You don't purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.
Check your facts, you may be right for the rest of the country but Shell were granted CPO for the land and only had to pay agricultural rates even though the most of the land would have been worth more in sites.
Marathon looking to sell their gas fields in Ireland including their interest in the Corrib Field:
NEW YORK, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has put its operations in Ireland on the block as part of an asset sale program that the company hopes will raise between $2 billion and $4 billion.
CEO Clarence Cazalot told an investor conference that Marathon is taking bids for its Kinsale Head and Seven Heads gas fields off the southern coast of Ireland as well as its 18.5 stake in the Corrib development off the northwest coast.
He said the company expects to make further announcements about asset sales later this year.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 09:50:16 AM
Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?
Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.
They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2008, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 09:50:16 AM
Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?
Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.
They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.
Most of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road?
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
QuoteSOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
That's not my impression at all - I think they'll be satisfied if the processing is undertaken at sea, rather than the cheaper option taken by Shell.
I wouldnt be sure Billy, the woman on hunger strike stated on Matt Cooper that if the Gov took over the works and maximised the profits, refined it at sea, undergorund pipes would she be happy and she said no, she didnt want it coming to land in that location.
On another note, knowing the woman personally i would not be surprised to see her go the whole way with the hunger strke. There is rumours that more are ready to join her on strike.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 11:59:32 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2008, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 09:50:16 AM
Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?
Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.
They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.
Most of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road?
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
If a truck carrying untreated, unsented (undetectable in the case of a leak) gas canisters under several times the pressure concidered safe past your house then yes, you should protest.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 15, 2008, 12:32:20 PM
QuoteSOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
That's not my impression at all - I think they'll be satisfied if the processing is undertaken at sea, rather than the cheaper option taken by Shell.
A process which is carried out inland in many places across the world
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:06:57 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 11:59:32 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2008, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 09:50:16 AM
Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?
Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.
They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.
Most of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road?
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
If a truck carrying untreated, unsented (undetectable in the case of a leak) gas canisters under several times the pressure concidered safe past your house then yes, you should protest.
Unsafe says the local residents and their experts , while the Irish government, shell and numerous others have said its fine
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Unsafe says the local residents and their experts , while the Irish government, shell and numerous others have said its fine
I see.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Unsafe says the local residents and their experts , while the Irish government, shell and numerous others have said its fine
I see.
Tell me why exactly the Irish government wants to wilfully endanger it own citizens?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:25:44 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Unsafe says the local residents and their experts , while the Irish government, shell and numerous others have said its fine
I see.
Tell me why exactly the Irish government wants to wilfully endanger it own citizens?
I give you the HSE.
QuoteTell me why exactly the Irish government wants to wilfully endanger it own citizens?
Cos there's f*** all people living there and they need to get the gas to population centres where they can get votes. And thats before you speculate on other reasons.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:25:44 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Unsafe says the local residents and their experts , while the Irish government, shell and numerous others have said its fine
I see.
Tell me why exactly the Irish government wants to wilfully endanger it own citizens?
I give you the HSE.
Compare these apples and oranges please!
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 15, 2008, 02:28:31 PM
QuoteTell me why exactly the Irish government wants to wilfully endanger it own citizens?
Cos there's f*** all people living there and they need to get the gas to population centres where they can get votes. And thats before you speculate on other reasons.
So the Irish government would kill people for a few votes ::) Have you seen the opposition, the most dangerous thing in Mayo at any given time is Enda not a pipe line.
Unless the Russians cut off our supply this gas in which case it will be a god send , this pipe will have very little effect on the price of gas . I can't see how it will win votes
When your accusing the Irish Government of willing and unlawfully endangering life's you know you've lost the run of yourself
I'm not saying its completely blatant but they're believing who it suits them to believe. More head in the sand than willful.
QuoteI can't see how it will win votes
If you really knew a lot about what happens outside Dublin you'd realise that vast tracks of the country do not have access to natural gas. It will be great for the new towns and cities that get connected. I just don't think it should be done this way.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:29:04 PM
Compare these apples and oranges please!
The HSE and Government are willfully killing Irish people. I won't bother trying to explain why but it is an example that it does happen for whatever reason.
What do SOS want?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:29:04 PM
Compare these apples and oranges please!
The HSE and Government are willfully killing Irish people. I won't bother trying to explain why but it is an example that it does happen for whatever reason.
Your comparing a multi-layer, civil service , self interest ,stuck in the past organisation like the Health service. Health services which the Brits still haven't got right , the yanks are a disgrace. The Canadians are taking their system apart peice by piece if why i read when i over their was correct. Too a problem the government got resolve in a pen stroke if it believed was a realistic health and safety issue
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:47:54 PM
Your comparing a multi-layer, civil service , self interest ,stuck in the past organisation like the Health service. Health services which the Brits still haven't got right , the yanks are a disgrace. The Canadians are taking their system apart peice by piece if why i read when i over their was correct. Too a problem the government got resolve in a pen stroke if it believed was a realistic health and safety issue
Ok Gnevin fair enough.
I believe the Irish Government are capable of puting the lives of Irish people at risk if the percentages suit them as a Government.
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 02:57:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:47:54 PM
Your comparing a multi-layer, civil service , self interest ,stuck in the past organisation like the Health service. Health services which the Brits still haven't got right , the yanks are a disgrace. The Canadians are taking their system apart peice by piece if why i read when i over their was correct. Too a problem the government got resolve in a pen stroke if it believed was a realistic health and safety issue
Ok Gnevin fair enough.
I believe the Irish Government are capable of puting the lives of Irish people at risk if the percentages suit them as a Government.
Well if you truly believe that you should leave
QuoteMost of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road?
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd
I think I made no claims whatsoever!
To begin at the end, the fact is that Marathon did commence operations at the Bellenaboy site by using bunds to contain a mountain of wet peat on a hillside over looking a road used by the local community. The case against them was proved in open court. Distrust of the multi-nationals began at this point and continues to the present day.
SOS claims being proved untrue or otherwise are matters I won't comment on as they don't concern me here.
I did say that existing legislation prohibits the laying of gas lines within 200m of existing dwellings and that raw gas is by its nature considerably more volatile than refined gas. Furthermore, it was proposed to pump this untreated gas ashore at several timers the pressure used for transporting mains gas from a refinery to its intended targets.
Now, if any of the above is untrue, I would like to know the source of the rebuttals because in all honesty I am unaware of them. Either the figures I quoted above are true or false and there can be no room for compromise here.
Whatever may have been proved about SOS claims or not proved, as the case may be, I have never heard of those figures being challenged by anyone. Another matter to have emerged form the claims and counter-claims saga is the charge that Shell's proposed modus operandi has never been tried out anywhere else in the world before they proposed bring the gas ashore at Bellenaboy.
Where I would give a personal opinion is here:
. The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road?
I most certainly would if it transpired that unstable, highly combustible raw gas was being carried at two to three times the pressure that is normally used for refined gas.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:58:56 PM
Well if you truly believe that you should leave
:o
No room for oposition in Ireland? The Chinese would be proud of you.
I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.
To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 15, 2008, 03:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 15, 2008, 02:58:56 PM
Well if you truly believe that you should leave
:o
No room for oposition in Ireland? The Chinese would be proud of you.
Didn't mean that , I meant I wouldn't live in the country where i believed the government has such as wilful disregard for life .
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.
To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?
I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.
Good post Blast.
Genuinely I believe if Shell agreed to process at sea then the trouble would be over. I also feel that if our government pressed them to do so they would eventually agree.
Quote from: blast05 on September 15, 2008, 04:24:39 PM
I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.
She has stated that exact point as one of the reasons for the strike
Quote from: blast05 on September 15, 2008, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.
To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?
I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.
You're spot on there, Blast.
I was down Bellenaboy way on Saturday to have a chat with some of the locals that I know. Maura Harrington lives in Doohoma, about 20 miles away and is not regarded by most as a 'local' person. It seems too that her action took many of the residents there by surprise. I don't mean that they don't broadly agree with her but they feel that she tends to act off her own bat.
Furthermore, some of the appellants at a planning meeting back in 2001 were at pains to point out that they were not against the gas being brought ashore. It was the proposed method of refining that they were objecting to.
Martin Healy, one of the appellants (objectors) at this meeting summed up their concerns neatly:
"You cannot build a gas terminal in a bog. That's free advice."
Quote from: ludermor on September 15, 2008, 04:39:15 PM
Quote from: blast05 on September 15, 2008, 04:24:39 PM
I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.
She has stated that exact point as one of the reasons for the strike
She has made it quite clear that if the pipe laying boat leaves then she will call off the strike. One demand.
Not true!
So if the gas was refined at sea it would still need to be broguht to land, and she would still be against this. She said quite clearly that she was against the gas coming ashore in whatever format.
Quote from: ludermor on September 15, 2008, 05:59:16 PM
Not true!
So if the gas was refined at sea it would still need to be broguht to land, and she would still be against this. She said quite clearly that she was against the gas coming ashore in whatever format.
You might be right she might be against this but it is not a demand of the hungerstrike.
She is on
hungerstrike with one demand. She has been on other forms of protest with other demands but the hungerstrike has one demand.
You might be right Zap but im sure she had a list of reasons when she was interviewed on Matt Cooper. Can anyone source the interview online? I know she realeased a statement saying she would come off it when the boat left irish waters but thought she added to it later
Lets her say all she likes. The question is whose opinion and stance is she representing.
"Shell to Sea" was set up to try and get the gas processed off shore - not stop the gas being processed or to get the government to re-negotiate anything with Shell. Shell to Sea are losing the PR battle and they have allowed their single issue to get tied up with the issue that Maura Harrington is trying to highlight. They are damned if they support her and they are damned if they don't. Hippies and crusties and Sinn Fein ((2 members of the local Sinn Fein party are employed by Shell)) also have nothing to do with Shell to Seas single issue - they are only also serving to confuse the issue by focusing on the money the governmnet is 'losing'
Where is Mark Garavan when he is needed. The Shell to Sea campaign has completely lost direction int he last 12 months
Edit: I've just looked at the Shell to Sea website. I stand corrected on most of the above. While the single focus of the campaign was on getting the gas to be processed at sea, i think it is clear now from the website with the big bold label of "Our Gas Our National Interest" that the focus has switched completely. Remains to be seen whether it will be sucessful. I still stand by the opinion that the vast majority of the original Shell to Sea campaigners (not including the rent-a-mob) are only interested in getting the terminal re-located out to sea.
See a bomb was planted out side's shells head office . And being very very careful here Shell have at least mentioned the Corbib project in their press release saying "In a statement released today, Shell says the work being undertaken on the Corrib pipeline in Mayo has all the necessary consents and permissions required. "
Bomb defused outside Shell headquarters in Dublin
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
* Print Print
* Email Email
Search Search Go
Bookmark & Share
* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Stumbleupon
What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A
Shell Ireland is describing the discovery of an explosive device outside its offices in Dublin as a "sinister development".
The Republic's Army Bomb Disposal Unit had to be called in to deal with the device outside Corrib House on Leeson Street at about 10.30pm last night.
A controlled explosion was carried out, and the scene was given the all clear at 11.20pm.
"The bomb disposal team received a Garda request to attend at the scene," said a Defence Forces spokesman.
"The team carried out a controlled explosion on the simple, improvised explosive device.
"The bomb disposal officer gave the all-clear at 11.20pm. The remains of the device were handed over to Gardai at the scene for investigation into the incident."
The area around Leeson Street and Adelaide Road was sealed off but was given the all-clear at around midnight. Shell Ireland is building a controversial pipeline despite local protests at Rossport in north Co Mayo.
In a statement released today, Shell says the work being undertaken on the Corrib pipeline in Mayo has all the necessary consents and permissions required.
The company goes on to say that this is a time for calm assessment and that they remain open and willing to talk to any individuals or groups who still have concerns about the project.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/bomb-defused-outside-shell-headquarters-in-dublin-13974178.html
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
She is also a person.
Do you know who did this?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
She is also a person.
Do you know who did this?
yes but what she is doing she can stop and its all he own choice, a bomb could go off at any stage killing anyone!
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:13:45 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
She is also a person.
Do you know who did this?
yes but what she is doing she can stop and its all he own choice, a bomb could go off at any stage killing anyone!
I gathered from your post that you think STS did this. Is that right? If so can you tell me why you think that?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:17:02 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:13:45 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
She is also a person.
Do you know who did this?
yes but what she is doing she can stop and its all he own choice, a bomb could go off at any stage killing anyone!
I gathered from your post that you think STS did this. Is that right? If so can you tell me why you think that?
It's being strongly implied in the news that while it may not be STS is someone who believes in their cause
I am fairly certain that there is not a person in Rossport, Pullathomas, Carratighe, Portacloy, Bar na Tra, Porturlin, Bellanaboy or any other village or townland in the area surrounding where the gas is coming onshore that would condone that placing of a bomb at the offices of Shell in Dublin as mean to further the cause of getting Shell to process the gas at an off-shote terminal.
Why did Shell feel the need to reference the works in Mayo in their press release ? Ridiculous and all as it is to say, but who is to say for certain that Shell did not put it there themselves
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 03:27:51 PM
I am fairly certain that there is not a person in Rossport, Pullathomas, Carratighe, Portacloy, Bar na Tra, Porturlin, Bellanaboy or any other village or townland in the area surrounding where the gas is coming onshore that would condone that placing of a bomb at the offices of Shell in Dublin as mean to further the cause of getting Shell to process the gas at an off-shote terminal.
Why did Shell feel the need to reference the works in Mayo in their press release ? Ridiculous and all as it is to say, but who is to say for certain that Shell did not put it there themselves
Sure maybe Biffo himself put it there hoping to take out a few citizens of homeless guys to keep the state coffers up ::)
Quote from: Gnevin on September 16, 2008, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:17:02 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:13:45 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 16, 2008, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:07:33 PM
ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!
She is also a person.
Do you know who did this?
yes but what she is doing she can stop and its all he own choice, a bomb could go off at any stage killing anyone!
I gathered from your post that you think STS did this. Is that right? If so can you tell me why you think that?
It's being strongly implied in the news that while it may not be STS is someone who believes in their cause
The Green Party or Al Gore maybe? How would they know this unless they know who did it?
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 03:27:51 PM
I am fairly certain that there is not a person in Rossport, Pullathomas, Carratighe, Portacloy, Bar na Tra, Porturlin, Bellanaboy or any other village or townland in the area surrounding where the gas is coming onshore that would condone that placing of a bomb at the offices of Shell in Dublin as mean to further the cause of getting Shell to process the gas at an off-shote terminal.
Why did Shell feel the need to reference the works in Mayo in their press release ? Ridiculous and all as it is to say, but who is to say for certain that Shell did not put it there themselves
Sure maybe Biffo himself put it there hoping to take out a few citizens of homeless guys to keep the state coffers up ::)
Says it all Tankie
Quote from: Gnevin on September 16, 2008, 03:44:30 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 03:27:51 PM
I am fairly certain that there is not a person in Rossport, Pullathomas, Carratighe, Portacloy, Bar na Tra, Porturlin, Bellanaboy or any other village or townland in the area surrounding where the gas is coming onshore that would condone that placing of a bomb at the offices of Shell in Dublin as mean to further the cause of getting Shell to process the gas at an off-shote terminal.
Why did Shell feel the need to reference the works in Mayo in their press release ? Ridiculous and all as it is to say, but who is to say for certain that Shell did not put it there themselves
Sure maybe Biffo himself put it there hoping to take out a few citizens of homeless guys to keep the state coffers up ::)
Says it all Tankie
FFS lads, i said its a ridiculous suggestion .... in the same manner that it is unfair that the media are taken it as a given that Shell to Sea are responsible.
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 03:51:39 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 16, 2008, 03:44:30 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 16, 2008, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 03:27:51 PM
I am fairly certain that there is not a person in Rossport, Pullathomas, Carratighe, Portacloy, Bar na Tra, Porturlin, Bellanaboy or any other village or townland in the area surrounding where the gas is coming onshore that would condone that placing of a bomb at the offices of Shell in Dublin as mean to further the cause of getting Shell to process the gas at an off-shote terminal.
Why did Shell feel the need to reference the works in Mayo in their press release ? Ridiculous and all as it is to say, but who is to say for certain that Shell did not put it there themselves
Sure maybe Biffo himself put it there hoping to take out a few citizens of homeless guys to keep the state coffers up ::)
Says it all Tankie
FFS lads, i said its a ridiculous suggestion .... in the same manner that it is unfair that the media are taken it as a given that Shell to Sea are responsible.
Yeah your right its as ridiculous as the notion of the Irish government wilfully endangering it own people !
These things can get out of hand very quick. There are interested partys on both side who would like to 'nip it in the bud' quickly.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2000/11/war-001108-afnga.htm
While we are not in the same league as Nigera we are dealing with the same company who have the same motives as the Nigerians are.
Shell have used force in other places to continue their work. The have employed Military trained security for their work here.
It is as plausible to suggest Shell did this as it is to suggest STS did it.
Posted the wrong link :D ;)
QuoteYeah your right its as ridiculous as the notion of the Irish government wilfully endangering it own people !
Remind me exactly where i suggested this ?
Wasting your time there Blast.
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 04:42:05 PM
QuoteYeah your right its as ridiculous as the notion of the Irish government wilfully endangering it own people !
Remind me exactly where i suggested this ?
I think it was for me blast.
I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".
Now i have read about this propsal on all the local rags but it is the first time i have heard or read it in the national media (i may well have missed it before). I always felt this was a perfectly reasonable compromise whereby the gas is piped another 8-10 miles east along the north Mayo coast and brought ashore at a new terminal right beside the coast at Glinsk, which is uninhabited and indeed would have no people living within a 2-3 mile radius. The nearest residents would be in the village of Belderrig. Shell of course have kept the heads down and dismissed the proposals as it would require the project to start again and thus delay gas coming ashore for probably 3-4 years. It also of course would have to be subject to the full planning routine but would be a more favourable site in that there are no residents close by, it would not require high pressure unprocessed gas to be piped on land, it would not risk polluting any water supply as per the terminal at Ballinaboy, the geology is more suitable etc etc
Of course, the Shell to Sea campaign have done themselves no favours in not highlighting this propsal sufficiently at a national level and have also, as i mentioned before, allowed themselves to have their cause confused in the publics mind by standing behind Maura Harrington. I would like to see something along the lines of a statement from them saying basically that it is their continued believe that a compromise is possible by the terminal re-locating to Glinsk and also asking Maura Harrington to stop her hunger strike. Such a statement would get top billing on all news bulletins cos of the request for Harrington to stop and would thus also highlight this to date, very poorly communicated (or at least understood) other option.
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 07:02:45 PM
I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".
This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.
Quote from: Bod Mor on September 17, 2008, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 07:02:45 PM
I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".
This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.
So now it's Shell to Sea and also a couple of miles up the road or not coming a shore in Mayo at all. I think you'll agree that's not as catchy
Quote from: Bod Mor on September 17, 2008, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 07:02:45 PM
I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".
This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.
Fair enough but i recall reading it in the local press a few months back, being presented as a new proposal. The fact that i can not recall it being highlighted as a proposal from Shell 2 Sea about 3 years ago is either a serious indictment on their whole media campaign or else raises serious questions about my memory :P
They urgently need someone to give the campaign some firm direction. Which is it ...
- Shell to Sea
- Shell not allowed to process the gas as it is "our gas, our national interest"
- Or Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk
In the publics mind, the 2nd option is on top albeit that i strongly think that there are very few people in the area that give a damn about that option, it all being about 1 or 3
Quote from: blast05 on September 17, 2008, 08:44:55 AM
Quote from: Bod Mor on September 17, 2008, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: blast05 on September 16, 2008, 07:02:45 PM
I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".
This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.
Fair enough but i recall reading it in the local press a few months back, being presented as a new proposal. The fact that i can not recall it being highlighted as a proposal from Shell 2 Sea about 3 years ago is either a serious indictment on their whole media campaign or else raises serious questions about my memory :P
They urgently need someone to give the campaign some firm direction. Which is it ...
- Shell to Sea
- Shell not allowed to process the gas as it is "our gas, our national interest"
- Or Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk
In the publics mind, the 2nd option is on top albeit that i strongly think that there are very few people in the area that give a damn about that option, it all being about 1 or 2
Did you mean 1 or 3 ?
Yes, corrected.
QuoteShell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk
I understood, amidst all the confusion, that all protesting parties were satisfied with this proposal.
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 17, 2008, 10:47:01 AM
QuoteShell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk
I understood, amidst all the confusion, that all protesting parties were satisfied with this proposal.
Including shell?
What are Shell protesting about?
As Seanie says, Gnevin, I didn't count Shell to be a member of the 'protesting parties'. Are they protesting about something? Most organisations, in a spirit of social accountability, should examine the proposals that are presented, especially by a vehement opposition to their own 'controversial' proposal. The protests are in relation to safety and environmental damage, after all, and while the evidence presented (by both sides) is not compelling, the Precautionary Principle is supposed to apply (by law, actually).
Quote from: Billys Boots on September 17, 2008, 11:19:01 AM
As Seanie says, Gnevin, I didn't count Shell to be a member of the 'protesting parties'. Are they protesting about something? Most organisations, in a spirit of social accountability, should examine the proposals that are presented, especially by a vehement opposition to their own 'controversial' proposal. The protests are in relation to safety and environmental damage, after all, and while the evidence presented (by both sides) is not compelling, the Precautionary Principle is supposed to apply (by law, actually).
I was unaware that the Precautionary Principle applies by law in this country. But if it does, serious consideration should be given to considering its application in this case.
When conflicting 'expert' reports were published at more or less the same time some years ago, it emerged that Shell's method of pumping gas ashore had never been tried out anywhere to date.
I recall some TV program where the two sides were represented by spokespeople and this matter was brought up. An S2S representative made this claim and it was not contested by the opposing side. Certainly, references were made to studies elsewhere and some sections of the whole extraction and refining processes were mentioned as having passed safety measures - but the system proposed by Shell was, and still is, an untested and untried process.
Most of my safety concerns relate to the fact that there are vast deposits of dobe underlying the soils throughout the area in question. Dobe (or daab, as we call it in Mayo) is an extremely unstable substance and is liable to swell during periods of heavy rainfall. Furthermore, it can move sideways as most pliable substances will, if heavy weights are placed on it.
You may be aware of the conditions of existing roads leading to the Bellenaboy region where heavy lorry traffic has reduced the surfaces in question to a mass of potholes and large scale subsidences.
This is the nature of the ground over which the new pipeline, without substantial foundation work, is supposed to be laid. The fact that the refinery is to be built on a bog, with underlying deposits of dobe, seems crazy to me.
Shell will claim that all aspects of the construction and maintenance of their project will meet the most stringent of safety regulations but they have never carried out this sort of work before and how can anyone foretell what the future will hold?
Supposing that on years to come a political situation could arise where extremists might decide to sabotage the pipeline?
It is no use to say that this is unlikely to happen because we cannot foretell the future. If the same pipeline is to be laid less than 100m in places away from existing dwellings, the locals will always have a very real concern for their safety.
I know the S2S people present a poor case to the public with various activists going on about different aspects of their overall concerns but for me, my reservations are about safety aspects first and foremost.
Shell to Sea was a rapidly formed group formed by a sleepy parish to stand up to a shocking disruption of their world and way of life, without any warning, planning or as has been proven in our courts, any due regard for our right to own our own land.
Critics, invariably in the national media and those who only source info from them, point to flawed strategy and poor PR by Shell to Sea. They also point to the 'rent a riot' crowd who they certainly would have done better to discourage from standing with them. Probably not the best decision ever made.
But what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe. The real issue here is the behaviour of our elected officials, (Government, opposition and local) throughout this whole debacle.
If the mullahs from Mayo took a few wrongs turns during their campaign is it not understandable, given that they have no experience of mass movements or civil disobedience? In fact when you consider they are fighting a multi-national oil company with a record of dealing viciously with locals who get in their way and a clearly corrupt regime who allow them to build away without planning, on the face of it I think they have performed miraculously.
The performance of our elected officials is all the more scandalous when you observe their Norwegian equivalents who use their natural resources to finance a fine Health Service. We use ours to finance the same Norwegian Health Service and Shell profits which will probably exceed our budget deficit this year.
That said I do not believe they have any connection with the device at Shell HQ and could never condone it if a link is made.
As far as I'm concerned the Precautionary Principle is a general principle of law in the EU since 2000. The EU documentation on it is here.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf)
Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2008, 02:45:00 PMBut what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe.
Moldova?
Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2008, 02:45:00 PM
Shell to Sea was a rapidly formed group formed by a sleepy parish to stand up to a shocking disruption of their world and way of life, without any warning, planning or as has been proven in our courts, any due regard for our right to own our own land.
Critics, invariably in the national media and those who only source info from them, point to flawed strategy and poor PR by Shell to Sea. They also point to the 'rent a riot' crowd who they certainly would have done better to discourage from standing with them. Probably not the best decision ever made.
But what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe. The real issue here is the behaviour of our elected officials, (Government, opposition and local) throughout this whole debacle.
If the mullahs from Mayo took a few wrongs turns during their campaign is it not understandable, given that they have no experience of mass movements or civil disobedience? In fact when you consider they are fighting a multi-national oil company with a record of dealing viciously with locals who get in their way and a clearly corrupt regime who allow them to build away without planning, on the face of it I think they have performed miraculously.
The performance of our elected officials is all the more scandalous when you observe their Norwegian equivalents who use their natural resources to finance a fine Health Service. We use ours to finance the same Norwegian Health Service and Shell profits which will probably exceed our budget deficit this year.
That said I do not believe they have any connection with the device at Shell HQ and could never condone it if a link is made.
Agreed with all that. Perhaps i have come accross as being overly negative and too critical where in fact its more a case of pointing out what i would love them to now do.
One point though, for the first 1-2 years of the campaign, they had Mark Garavan as the public representative. Seldom has any national campaign in Ireland had as informed and articulate a speaker as him. If anything he was probably too intellectual. They despertately need someone of his ilk to come back on board and represent their views.
The truth is that most countries would bite Shell's hand off to allow them to gain access to natural gas/oil off their coast in the current climate.
Years of prosperity have changed our outlook and allowed a couple of self interested farmers, fishermen and Eco warriors to set the agenda. Time to wake up I think.
Self interested farmers and fishermen ??
What would that self interest be ?
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
where you out watching that british soccer team you love on tuesday LL?
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
where you out watching that british soccer team you love on tuesday LL?
??? Thats a funny question and I can't see the relevance all that chip oil must be getting the better of you,but to answer, no i watched it at home and throughly enjoyed it
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
:D :D
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
where you out watching that british soccer team you love on tuesday LL?
??? Thats a funny question and I can't see the relevance all that chip oil must be getting the better of you,but to answer, no i watched it at home and throughly enjoyed it
like a true british fan. are you not putting your crest up again this season?
Is it reasonable to make the benign assumption that this is not on the front pages because the media realise that the woman needs help and that hyping up her self-harming might only serve to encourage it?
it will be interesting to see how this plays out as I cannot se shell taking the ship out of irish waters!
Quote from: Hardy on September 18, 2008, 02:33:18 PM
Is it reasonable to make the benign assumption that this is not on the front pages because the media realise that the woman needs help and that hyping up her self-harming might only serve to encourage it?
That's what I thought when I saw her interviewed. She needs help. Do they have the equivalent of sectioning under the Mental Health Act in the South?
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
where you out watching that british soccer team you love on tuesday LL?
??? Thats a funny question and I can't see the relevance all that chip oil must be getting the better of you,but to answer, no i watched it at home and throughly enjoyed it
like a true british fan. are you not putting your crest up again this season?
Yeah might do after the Ryder Cup...Do you wanna explain where you are going with this your not making any sense young man
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:55:10 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on September 18, 2008, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on September 18, 2008, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Tankie on September 18, 2008, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: Colonel Cool on September 18, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?
yeah i was listening to her today, shes on day ten. She said she wont eat until the pipe laying ship leaves irish waters. She is playing a dangerous game here and working on the assumption that people give a fock.
Is she the leader of the protests?
Do people not give a fock?
I dont think she is a leader or anything like that. Also i dont think people do care, when the 5 lads were sent to jail i was expecting a huge public outcry but nobody cared, sure i brought it up in work today an some colleagues didnt even know what i was talking about!
Thats because most people working in McDonalds are foreign
where you out watching that british soccer team you love on tuesday LL?
??? Thats a funny question and I can't see the relevance all that chip oil must be getting the better of you,but to answer, no i watched it at home and throughly enjoyed it
like a true british fan. are you not putting your crest up again this season?
Yeah might do after the Ryder Cup...Do you wanna explain where you are going with this your not making any sense young man
I have no real direction as it is well off topic!
Quote from: Lecale2 on September 17, 2008, 09:52:28 PM
The truth is that most countries would bite Shell's hand off to allow them to gain access to natural gas/oil off their coast in the current climate.
Years of prosperity have changed our outlook and allowed a couple of self interested farmers, fishermen and Eco warriors to set the agenda. Time to wake up I think.
You are right, it is time you woke up to the reality of what is going on.
Firstly lets ringfence your accusing the farmers etc of self interest.
Now why should we bite Shell's hand off? You have ruled out the defense of self interest in the case of the farmers, fishermen etc so you obviously cannot use it as an argument for the Government .
What's good for the goose is good for the brown envelope loving gander.
So if self interest is ruled out then why would we bite Shell's hand off to merely give away the only useful natural resource that we have, for free?
FYI the natural gas will be sold to the international market at market rates. If hypothetically we couldn't afford market rates (imagine a spike in energy prices) then any country that could afford it would get the gas. Shell get the money. We'd get 50 jobs until the gas runs out.
Now if we ignore the locals protest and re-allow the self interest agrument in the case of a country selling its gas, surely there would actually be some charge for the raw material? But there isn't, not a cent.
So tell me how it is any of our interests?
Muppet - well named.
There's two sides to the story. We need the Gas for our economy. The farmers & fishermen need to wake up to progress. This is the counter arguement from Mayo for the Gas.
Recent Shell to Sea proposal is nothing new; it is high time Mayo put controversy behind it and start maximising the tangible benefits from bringing the gas ashore says Brendan Cafferty, Secretary of the Pro Gas Mayo group.
The Pro Gas Mayo group was set up to give the ordinary people of Mayo a voice in the debate over the gas. Included in our group are farmers, businessmen, ordinary workers, unemployed and retired people. . We represent the families that have long been separated by those who have had to go to Britain and further in an effort to find work. We represent the people who see the gas as the first chapter in a new history of Mayo. We have watched quietly from the sidelines whilst the Government, big business and various other groups with their own agendas have claimed to represent the people of Erris and Mayo, and we are saying it's high time we spoke for ourselves.
The Pro-Gas Mayo group wants Corrib gas to be developed in its current design for one simple reason; we believe that an onshore terminal offers Mayo the best way to maximise the benefits of the gas. Offshore processing will certainly provide benefits, but not to the communities in Erris. It's a simple fact that Ireland, never mind Mayo, doesn't have the capabilities to build or support an offshore platform. Only by building an onshore terminal will local suppliers and sub-contractors get a chance to participate in the project and thus share the benefit.
I understand that there are now nearly 170 jobs that can be directly or indirectly linked to work at the Bellanaboy Bridge site, this will increase to 700 during construction. I accept that this figure is only for the duration of construction but 700 jobs over a two-year period is certainly of great value in unemployment black spot. I believe the gas will act as a catalyst for much needed further development in the area. Looking longer term there will be 50 permanent jobs on the terminal, 50 permanent, pensionable jobs is certainly not to be sniffed at and is in our view the tip of the iceberg. Such a facility can not operate in isolation and must be supported by all manner of services and contractors, again these satellite jobs would not exist if the gas was processed offshore.
Apart from the obvious benefits of employment, the other primary benefit to Mayo is the gas itself. Some towns in Mayo will be disappointed that the recent announcement was not more widespread, understandably so. These towns have long since recognised the potential for development that gas will bring to their communities. The best example of this lies in Cork, where the availability of gas has encouraged world-leaders in the pharmaceutical industry to locate their premises in the area. It is unwise to predict a similar boom in Mayo, but you can guarantee that without the gas Mayo will not be viewed as an attractive proposition for future foreign and domestic investors.
While we welcome very much the recent RedC opinion poll which shows that a large majority of people in the county wish to see people go to work on the project unhindered, it is our opinion that that such polls can hardly be the criterion for deciding the desirability or otherwise of developments such as this, phone masts or whatever.
Of course we don't advocate jobs at any cost and some people will rightly point out that the health and safety of the community of Erris, and the environmental protection of the landscape is the number one factor in deciding how to recover the gas. We agree wholeheartedly with this, the fact of the matter is however, neither our group, nor many of the loudest voices in this debate, are experts on the matters of locating or operating a gas-processing terminal, or on pipeline safety. We believe that the experts should be left to do their job and we as a society must trust in their expertise and competency. Due process has been followed, relevant authorities have been fully engaged, submissions have been made from various parties; including Dr Garavan of Shell to Sea who said in a letter to Mayo County Council "that there was no demonstrable need to recover the gas". Yet there is reluctance on behalf of some who have participated to accept the outcomes of these processes. Pipe safety through Rossport was the issue last year (despite getting a clean bill of health from Advantica consultants), now that it is out of the equation, new agendas arise. Things like tax yield, peat removal, UK Gas are thrown into the pot. I say that Shell will pay 26% corporation tax, while other companies operating here pay 12.5%; if the tax regime was so good, how come there were so few companies interested in exploring the wells? The Terminal is located in a wooded area in one of the best sites possible. Yes peat is being transported from it to a Bord Na Mona cut-away bog at Shramore- hardly a cataclysmic development ! Ireland imports up to 90% of it's gas from the UK which itself is now a net importer of the product, hardly an optimum situation with Kinsale Gas running out. Corrib will supply about 60% of our Gas needs, so we see the necessity of the project going ahead. We say that Shell to Sea's proposal is nothing that hasn't been gone through before, the time has past for a re-think of the design concept, let's getting on with the practical business of asserting Mayo on the national stage
And this is really what we are all about. We have watched Mayo's reputation been dragged through the mud recently as outlined by Superintendent Gannon in a recent article and want to show the country that we welcome the gas, we welcome development and we want to play our part in the vibrant Ireland we live in today.
Sustainability Report
Sustainability Report
Download the Shell Sustainability Report 2006 or view it online
Exploration
Exploration
Our Oil and Gas exploration activities in Ireland...
News and Library
News and Library
Latest Press Releases and Articles.
QuoteMuppet - well named.
When you start a post like that it doesn't help matters or impress anyone.
Quote from: Silky on September 18, 2008, 09:41:18 PM
Muppet - well named.
There's two sides to the story. We need the Gas for our economy. The farmers & fishermen need to wake up to progress. This is the counter arguement from Mayo for the Gas.
Do you not have your own opinion or are you too lazy to look into what is really happening here. By the way, that article is from the shell website, I suggest you post your sources next time.
I suggest you reword that last sentence too. This is a counter argument from
pro gas mayo, not mayo as a whole.
What's the view on this issue outside of Mayo? Is the rest of the Free State in favour?
Silky that is straight from Shell.com, are you serious?
Here is a report on the equally dubious indymedia.org (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/360934.shtml)
However it is the only media organisation in this country that will publish a negative story about Shell.
The thing about that story is that they missed, for me, what is the most damning information.
The Gárdaí, at Shell's request, broke onto the man's land and threw himself and his (uninvited) defenders off the land in no uncertain terms.
For the next 3 days at 8am a group of Gárdaí arrived at his house banging on his door, roaring into bullhorns calling his name and bizzarrely they recorded the whole thing on video. We can only assume they were trying to provoke a stupid reaction from him and would then present it as evidence of his belligerence.
This abuse ended after three days when he finally met the local Gárda chief (who had ordered the whole thing) and presented evidence to him of his ownership of all of the land involved. (The Gárdaí had claimed it was County Council land).
A short time later the man had a stroke.
I understand that Shell issued an apology in a national newspaper. I believe there was no comment from the Gárdaí.
My source is a member of the man's family. He is not a member of Shell to Sea and neither am I.
They should be bloody dame happy to get a few jobs down that end of the county considering the state the economy is in. Too long Erris have been packing their young off to foreign shores.
Between Sinn Fein, Hippies, farmers and fishermen none of them can even agree what they want. Money is the root of all this. The locals were expecting to make a killing and didn't and are now up in arms.
Feck the crack pots, progress I say. Alot of them down there still think the world is flat.
Quotefarmers and fishermen none of them can even agree what they want. Money is the root of all this. The locals were expecting to make a killing and didn't and are now up in arms.
Funny then that Shell have given a large payment to the Erris offshores fishermens organisation which was distributed among most of the fishermen. The fishermen that are now protesting didn't accept the payment out of principle .....
Quote from: blast05 on September 19, 2008, 09:29:34 PM
Quotefarmers and fishermen none of them can even agree what they want. Money is the root of all this. The locals were expecting to make a killing and didn't and are now up in arms.
Funny then that Shell have given a large payment to the Erris offshores fishermens organisation which was distributed among most of the fishermen. The fishermen that are now protesting didn't accept the payment out of principle .....
The fishermen's organisatiuon overwhelmingly accepted the payment that they agreed with Shell for compensation for thos ewho regularly fished the area for temporary interruption of their activities during pipe laying in a small part of the fisheries field. Smaller payments were agreed for members who did not regularly fish that area.
Those fishermen who are now protesting ( a handfull only) did not start fishing that area until after the deal was done and now they object to it beacuse really they want the same payment as the regular fishermen.
This is Ireland.
I'd be shocked to hear of a protest from an irishman when there was money to be had no matter what the issue. Those seven bedroom pink bungalows don't pay for themselves you know.
Quote from: StoneWall on September 19, 2008, 05:05:25 PM
They should be bloody dame happy to get a few jobs down that end of the county considering the state the economy is in. Too long Erris have been packing their young off to foreign shores.
Between Sinn Fein, Hippies, farmers and fishermen none of them can even agree what they want. Money is the root of all this. The locals were expecting to make a killing and didn't and are now up in arms.
Feck the crack pots, progress I say. Alot of them down there still think the world is flat.
Good man, Stonewall, you're bringing a bit of ironic humour into the discussion.
You're dead right about the possibility of the world being flat for the shower of them down there- or at least they appear to think that their world could become very flat indeed for miles around the place!
I too would be quite concerned if I lived in a place where a high pressure pipeline passed within 70m of my house. I might be unhappier at the realisation that this gas would be in its raw state and was going to be pumped at a much higher pressure than is allowed anywhere else in the civilised world.
How much money do you think do you think would be sufficient for Rossport residents to relax and learn to co-exist with this time bomb in close proximity to themselves and their loved ones and possibly their descendants for generations to come?
The fact that the gas line would be overground and could present an attractive target for political extremists and head bangers of all flavours for many years into the future would hardly go away if money was indeed offered to the people concerned.
By the way, there is a strong suspicion in the area that Shell has discovered greater reserves at a point that lies roughly 40 miles northwest of Rossport. I cannot confirm that this is so but it would make sense of the fact that this part of Mayo was chosen to refine the gas and not a not a site nearer the Corrib Field. You could then forget about the projected life span of the Bellenboy operation being no more than 25 years.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 20, 2008, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: StoneWall on September 19, 2008, 05:05:25 PM
They should be bloody dame happy to get a few jobs down that end of the county considering the state the economy is in. Too long Erris have been packing their young off to foreign shores.
Between Sinn Fein, Hippies, farmers and fishermen none of them can even agree what they want. Money is the root of all this. The locals were expecting to make a killing and didn't and are now up in arms.
Feck the crack pots, progress I say. Alot of them down there still think the world is flat.
Good man, Stonewall, you're bringing a bit of ironic humour into the discussion.
You're dead right about the possibility of the world being flat for the shower of them down there- or at least they appear to think that their world could become very flat indeed for miles around the place!
I too would be quite concerned if I lived in a place where a high pressure pipeline passed within 70m of my house. I might be unhappier at the realisation that this gas would be in its raw state and was going to be pumped at a much higher pressure than is allowed anywhere else in the civilised world.
How much money do you think do you think would be sufficient for Rossport residents to relax and learn to co-exist with this time bomb in close proximity to themselves and their loved ones and possibly their descendants for generations to come?
The fact that the gas line would be overground and could present an attractive target for political extremists and head bangers of all flavours for many years into the future would hardly go away if money was indeed offered to the people concerned.
By the way, there is a strong suspicion in the area that Shell has discovered greater reserves at a point that lies roughly 40 miles northwest of Rossport. I cannot confirm that this is so but it would make sense of the fact that this part of Mayo was chosen to refine the gas and not a not a site nearer the Corrib Field. You could then forget about the projected life span of the Bellenboy operation being no more than 25 years.
The minimum distance is now 150 metres and the pressure greatly reduced
QuoteThe minimum distance is now 150 metres and the pressure greatly reduced
That's fair enough, Gn, and it does seem to make the possibility of a major disaster much less than what could have been the case.
However, my point has been that it wasn't the opportunity to make money that led the Rossport Five to spend 94 days in prison. The five locals conducted themselves with dignity and restraint throughout the proceedings- at least I have not heard or seen a single word to the contrary.
The fact that the original construction proposals have now been altered is very welcome but the readiness for change does highlight one fact; the men who went to jail felt they had serious cause for concern to begin with.
It might be relevant to remember that a TNS/MRBI poll, commissioned by RTE in 2006, showed that two thirds of those surveyed throughout Mayo supported the stance taken by the Rossport Five, with one quarter disagreeing.. (The figures are quoted from an entry on Wikipedia.)
QuoteThose fishermen who are now protesting ( a handfull only) did not start fishing that area until after the deal was done and now they object to it beacuse really they want the same payment as the regular fishermen.
One of the key protesting fishermen, Pat O'Donnell, known locally as "the chief", has been fishing the area all his life, currently holds a license for crab fishing in Broadhaven Bay and
refused to sign an agreement between Shell and the Erris Fishermen's Association. Under Maritime Law as currently defined (according to O'Donnells solicitor who is actively pursuing Shell on this), Shell have no authority to remove his fishing pots and other gear, which are along the line of the proposed path for the pipes. Shell have quoted ministerial authority that would allow them to proceed but this holds no legal weight (again, according to O'Donnells solicitor) and in order for Shell to proceed with the pipe laying, sections of maritime law would need to be re-wrote.
Quote from: blast05 on September 20, 2008, 06:31:14 PM
QuoteThose fishermen who are now protesting ( a handfull only) did not start fishing that area until after the deal was done and now they object to it beacuse really they want the same payment as the regular fishermen.
One of the key protesting fishermen, Pat O'Donnell, known locally as "the chief", has been fishing the area all his life, currently holds a license for crab fishing in Broadhaven Bay and refused to sign an agreement between Shell and the Erris Fishermen's Association. Under Maritime Law as currently defined (according to O'Donnells solicitor who is actively pursuing Shell on this), Shell have no authority to remove his fishing pots and other gear, which are along the line of the proposed path for the pipes. Shell have quoted ministerial authority that would allow them to proceed but this holds no legal weight (again, according to O'Donnells solicitor) and in order for Shell to proceed with the pipe laying, sections of maritime law would need to be re-wrote.
Shell have received no planning permission for the pipelaying as our government decided it wasn't needed. That is what Shell mean by ministerial authority, they give the boys a call and the government gives them what they want. I suspect the courts will find the government offside again, especially now that the uber right wing Minister for Justice is gone.
But despite his party's demise we have evolved into a situation where our so-called Green(back) party is helping an oil company get around planning laws. Only in Ireland. ::)
This however is only a side issue. Whether there was a refinery at sea, land or on the moon there would still be pipes coming ashore in Mayo. That aspect will happen.
It may be more than a side issue Muppet. If as you say the courts find the government offside then how can Shell be allowed bring the pipes through Broadhaven Bay, or more specifically a path through Broadhaven Bay that would allow them to continue through Scrudawn (spel?) Bay ? Of course the answer is to tweak maritime law but can the government really be seen to do that ??
Masked gang attack staff at Shell gas site
Friday April 24 2009
Local agitators have been blamed for masterminding the attack on the Corrib Gas landfall site in Co Mayo, which resulted in thousands of euro worth of damage to property.
Gardai are satisfied that a small group of locals were the main culprits in the well-planned assault in which up to 15 masked men, armed with iron bars, set upon a security guard while other protesters cheered. The masked gang used a mechanical digger to destroy 25 metres of fencing.
It is the latest in a series of recent attacks on the property of Shell personnel and gardai in a campaign described as highly co-ordinated.
A car belonging to a detective garda in Belmullet was damaged in one incident, while another car, owned by a Shell employee, had acid poured on it while it was parked in Salthill, Galway.
Gardai said they were satisfied those involved in the recent incidents included locals, although they said there were some outside influences from members of subversive-related groups and full-time protesters. A hard core of less than 40 activists are believed to be behind the campaign.
One security guard was struck on the arm with an iron bar as the gang stormed the main entrance shortly before midnight on Wednesday.
In a separate incident, Willie Corduff (55), a prominent Shell to Sea campaigner, was hospitalised after being dragged by security guards from beneath a truck. He was being treated last night at Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar.
Gardai hope to interview Mr Corduff about the incident after he has been discharged from hospital.
Assaulted
The Shell to Sea group claimed Mr Corduff, who spent 94 days in prison in 2005 for his opposition to the onshore pipeline, had been "viciously" and "brutally" assaulted. He had intended to remain under the truck until he had evidence that Shell had authorisation for the work.
Most of the security staff were keeping watch on a large group of protesters when the masked gang confronted the three guards left at the entrance and forced their way in.
Chief Superintendent Tony McNamara, who is in charge of the Mayo garda division, told the Irish Independent last night that the takeover of the Shell compound had been organised with almost military precision.
He called on people to "stand back from the brink" and appealed to them to engage with the forum set up by the Government to examine issues of concern.
He said consultations had taken place with the local planning authority and the gardai were satisfied that Shell were entitled to carry out the work they had begun at Glengad.
Energy Minister Eamon Ryan last night described the attack as a "source of real concern".
Expressing his anxiety, he warned: "If we go over into a form of violent process, it leads us down a path that is of no benefit to anyone."
- Tom Brady and om Shiel
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/masked-gang-attack-staff-at-shell-gas-site-1718533.html
A lot of the locals working there are working in security and have been let go the past few weeks, this should get them a bit more work!
Quote from: Gnevin on April 25, 2009, 12:54:48 PM
Masked gang attack staff at Shell gas site
Friday April 24 2009
Local agitators have been blamed for masterminding the attack on the Corrib Gas landfall site in Co Mayo, which resulted in thousands of euro worth of damage to property.
Gardai are satisfied that a small group of locals were the main culprits in the well-planned assault in which up to 15 masked men, armed with iron bars, set upon a security guard while other protesters cheered. The masked gang used a mechanical digger to destroy 25 metres of fencing.
It is the latest in a series of recent attacks on the property of Shell personnel and gardai in a campaign described as highly co-ordinated.
A car belonging to a detective garda in Belmullet was damaged in one incident, while another car, owned by a Shell employee, had acid poured on it while it was parked in Salthill, Galway.
Gardai said they were satisfied those involved in the recent incidents included locals, although they said there were some outside influences from members of subversive-related groups and full-time protesters. A hard core of less than 40 activists are believed to be behind the campaign.
One security guard was struck on the arm with an iron bar as the gang stormed the main entrance shortly before midnight on Wednesday.
In a separate incident, Willie Corduff (55), a prominent Shell to Sea campaigner, was hospitalised after being dragged by security guards from beneath a truck. He was being treated last night at Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar.
Gardai hope to interview Mr Corduff about the incident after he has been discharged from hospital.
Assaulted
The Shell to Sea group claimed Mr Corduff, who spent 94 days in prison in 2005 for his opposition to the onshore pipeline, had been "viciously" and "brutally" assaulted. He had intended to remain under the truck until he had evidence that Shell had authorisation for the work.
Most of the security staff were keeping watch on a large group of protesters when the masked gang confronted the three guards left at the entrance and forced their way in.
Chief Superintendent Tony McNamara, who is in charge of the Mayo garda division, told the Irish Independent last night that the takeover of the Shell compound had been organised with almost military precision.
He called on people to "stand back from the brink" and appealed to them to engage with the forum set up by the Government to examine issues of concern.
He said consultations had taken place with the local planning authority and the gardai were satisfied that Shell were entitled to carry out the work they had begun at Glengad.
Energy Minister Eamon Ryan last night described the attack as a "source of real concern".
Expressing his anxiety, he warned: "If we go over into a form of violent process, it leads us down a path that is of no benefit to anyone."
- Tom Brady and om Shiel
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/masked-gang-attack-staff-at-shell-gas-site-1718533.html
Fair play to the masked men!! And to Willie Corduff.
Fair play to a gang of thugs who beats a worker with an iron bar?
No but for standing up for their beliefs, the govt doesn't give a shit about the locals back there in my opinion.
so you are happy they are beating up and intimidating other locals in order to stand up for their beliefs?
If one of your aggrieved students ( they might be young i know!!) handcuffed himself to your car and lied under the wheel would you stand aside and applaud him? Some people may share the beliefs but there are as many locals who dont do you support them as well??
Quote from: ludermor on April 25, 2009, 07:01:28 PM
so you are happy they are beating up and intimidating other locals in order to stand up for their beliefs?
If one of your aggrieved students ( they might be young i know!!) handcuffed himself to your car and lied under the wheel would you stand aside and applaud him? Some people may share the beliefs but there are as many locals who dont do you support them as well??
you are correct there ludermor.there is a lot of intimidation of the locals that are working back there. i know one lad was told that he would end up like the ex shell security guard who was shot dead in bolivia
FFS!!! no need to dramatise things the lads are being intimidated every day but told not to say anything . its good money for them
Any masked men attacking anyone is out of order and doesn't help their case. Any reasonable law abiding person should condemn such behaviour. I hate seeing what Shell do around the world and especially in Mayo, but this is not the way.
This woman is at it yet again. Not well in the head at all. But then obstrcution and intimidation is the trademark of the S2S gang, it's time to sort them out.
QuoteMaura Harrington faces two dangerous driving charges
SHELL to sea activist Maura Harrington was before Ballina District Court last week on two counts of dangerous driving arising out of an incident that took place when Ms Harrington followed a bus carrying security workers from the Corrib gas project.
Garda Adrian Kearins told the court that on July 3 of last year he was on mobile patrol in Crossmolina with Garda Caroline Taaffe when they received a call about dangerous driving in Ballycastle involving a silver Volkswagen Bora.
Garda Kearins said he went to Ballycastle where he saw a silver Bora and a white transit van driving towards him. He then turned and followed the vehicles which turned down the Crossmolina road. The van stopped and Garda Kearins spoke to the driver, Mark O'Shea, who told him that he was concerned for his passengers due to the erratic driving of the vehicle behind him. The occupant of the silver Bora, Maura Harrington of Doohoma, Ballina was signalled to remain at the scene but it followed the white van when it pulled out.
Garda Kearins told the court he activated the sirens and blue lights and said the car in front, the Bora, was moving into the centre of the road and drove on the wrong side of the road. He said his only assumption was that the driver did not want him to pass. He said the road is narrow and that there was a continuous white line for about half a mile. He outlined that two vehicles came in the opposite direction on two separate occasions and the driver of the Bora had to swerve in both times to avoid a collision. Garda Kearins said shortly after the last vehicle passed, the driver of the transit van pulled in and the Bora also stopped. He spoke to the driver, Maura Harrington. Ms Harrington produced her driving licence and insurance.
He said the incident took place over a stretch of road of approximately 5km and between 8.45pm and 8.50pm. Garda Kearins asked Ms Harrington why she followed the van and she said it looked suspicious and she said she thought the gardaí were following the van rather than her.
The court heard that Keith O'Sullivan, a passenger in the white transit had filmed part of the incident on his mobile phone. The video had been forwarded via Bluetooth to Garda Taaffe, who in turn forwarded it to Detective Garda Leo Heaney, who downloaded the clip onto a DVD. The DVD was viewed in court. Mr O'Sullivan said that Ms Harrington's driving was scary at times.
The bus driver Mark O'Shea, a security worker and bus driver for IRMS Security, said he was bringing security staff to Ballina on the day in question. He said that when he pulled out from the site at Glengad, a silver Bora was behind him. He said he then pulled in to let the car pass at Aughoose church but the car pulled in front of him and blocked the van. He said the gardaí arrived and removed the vehicle and then the gardaí followed the van as they made their way to Ballycastle. He said he noticed the silver Bora again later on into the journey.
Solicitor for Ms Harrington, Alan Gannon, put it Mr O'Shea that he had pulled out in front of Ms Harrington at the Glengad site and that he had decided to make a complaint about her driving in case she would make a complaint about his driving.
Maura Harrington told the court that she was travelling in her car with her husband driving when a white van pulled out in front very sharply in front of them at Glengad. She said they continued on and followed the white van and attempted to make a complaint but there was no phone coverage in the area until she got to Aughoose church where the van had pulled in. She said they stopped in front of the van as they wanted to find out who were 'these unidentifiable people who had taken control of the place'.
Supt Frank Walsh put it to Ms Harrington that she was using the incident as 'colourful device' to establish who the people in the van were. He said she engaged in completely unlawful action and showed complete disregard for the rights of the other road users.
Ms Harrington's husband Naoise Ó Mongáin said Sgt Butler from Belmullet had viciously assaulted him at Aughoose church. When asked why he did not make a complaint he said it was pointless and that he had tried to make complaints over the years without success.
Judge Mary Devins said that in an attempt to appear clever, Mr Ó'Mongáin, was only appearing 'fatally ridiculous'.
Judge Devins adjourned the case to hear a witness from Ballina Garda Station who took the initial call of complaint and find out who it came from. The case was adjourned for mention to May 26.
QuoteAny masked men attacking anyone is out of order and doesn't help their case.
Especially when it's far from clear on whose 'behalf' these 'masked men' were acting.
Is there no limits to what these lunatics will get up to.
There was a terrible carcrash in belmullet at the weekend between a young local lad and a car carrying 2 guards. It is obviously a terrrible tragedy for all involved ( and could have been worse, 3 guards were travelling from the one area and could easily have been in the same car.
The morning of the accident a few of the shell to sea crew landed at the scene and started taking photos of the crash site and of the surrounding areas. They are trying to link this crash (and the death of 2 people the weekend before in a house fire/smoke inhalation) to shell intimidation. I am f**king sickened by this!
Quote from: ludermor on May 13, 2009, 10:54:21 AM
Is there no limits to what these lunatics will get up to.
There was a terrible carcrash in belmullet at the weekend between a young local lad and a car carrying 2 guards. It is obviously a terrrible tragedy for all involved ( and could have been worse, 3 guards were travelling from the one area and could easily have been in the same car.
The morning of the accident a few of the shell to sea crew landed at the scene and started taking photos of the crash site and of the surrounding areas. They are trying to link this crash (and the death of 2 people the weekend before in a house fire/smoke inhalation) to shell intimidation. I am f**king sickened by this!
They can't be serious , it was a terrible week for the erris region with those two tragedies without trying to link them to shell for extra publicity i assume
Its what they are putting out, the young fellas uncle is a spokesman for the group and they are saying it may be a way to silence them. the tragedy is bad enough without having to listen to this shit.
Quote from: muppet on September 19, 2008, 04:06:32 PM
Silky that is straight from Shell.com, are you serious?
Here is a report on the equally dubious indymedia.org (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/360934.shtml)
However it is the only media organisation in this country that will publish a negative story about Shell.
The thing about that story is that they missed, for me, what is the most damning information.
The Gárdaí, at Shell's request, broke onto the man's land and threw himself and his (uninvited) defenders off the land in no uncertain terms.
For the next 3 days at 8am a group of Gárdaí arrived at his house banging on his door, roaring into bullhorns calling his name and bizzarrely they recorded the whole thing on video. We can only assume they were trying to provoke a stupid reaction from him and would then present it as evidence of his belligerence.
This abuse ended after three days when he finally met the local Gárda chief (who had ordered the whole thing) and presented evidence to him of his ownership of all of the land involved. (The Gárdaí had claimed it was County Council land).
A short time later the man had a stroke.
I understand that Shell issued an apology in a national newspaper. I believe there was no comment from the Gárdaí.
My source is a member of the man's family. He is not a member of Shell to Sea and neither am I.
You never commented how sick you were on the above Luder.
Care to comment about the latest goings on muppet?
Quote from: muppet on April 27, 2009, 04:53:35 PM
Any masked men attacking anyone is out of order and doesn't help their case. Any reasonable law abiding person should condemn such behaviour. I hate seeing what Shell do around the world and especially in Mayo, but this is not the way.
Did you miss this Luder?
I didn't at all muppet, do you have any views on linking the recent tragedies to Shell?
As for your earlier comment of course i am disgusted by the actions of the guards in that case. Does every act needs a response?
For what it is worth i know plenty down their on a daily basis on both sides of the divide ( protesters, some militant some not, lads working on security, lads working on site) so i wouldn't have clouded opinions in either directions. But the amount of shit that is happening there on a daily basis is frightening and it is not being reported for whatever reason. As much as the mainstream media seem to be neglecting a lots of the anti shell stuff you cannot rely on the likes of indymedia when their reports come straight from the camp and the shelltosea (or whatever they are called now) website. They have put up address details of some of the local guards on the site, i presume it is not to send xmas cards. There is a whole world of shit happening there i would condemn all sides.
Quote from: ludermor on May 13, 2009, 01:44:37 PM
I didn't at all muppet, do you have any views on linking the recent tragedies to Shell?
As for your earlier comment of course i am disgusted by the actions of the guards in that case. Does every act needs a response?
For what it is worth i know plenty down their on a daily basis on both sides of the divide ( protesters, some militant some not, lads working on security, lads working on site) so i wouldn't have clouded opinions in either directions. But the amount of shit that is happening there on a daily basis is frightening and it is not being reported for whatever reason. As much as the mainstream media seem to be neglecting a lots of the anti shell stuff you cannot rely on the likes of indymedia when their reports come straight from the camp and the shelltosea (or whatever they are called now) website. They have put up address details of some of the local guards on the site, i presume it is not to send xmas cards. There is a whole world of shit happening there i would condemn all sides.
I agree with the above and I also condemn what is happening on both sides.
My link to the Indymedia was purely because it was never reported in the mainstream and thus I couldn't put up a more credible one. I know that story to be to be a fact though, as I said I confirmed it with a (very distressed) family member. Many Mayo posters here know me and I would put my reputation on that.
This whole thing has a sort of Palestine like twist to it. You know there are genuine victims, you know there is heavy handedness but you can't have much sympathy with suicide bombers, Hamas, the PLO or whatever headbangers some of the the locals respond with. The Government (and amazingly the opposition) don't want to touch it with a barge pole even though they created the mess and no matter what happens they will have to clean it up.
What I do know is that Shell have form and before their arrival that part of Mayo hardly ever needed policing.
Trampling all over people just because the economy needs Gas is the sort of thinking that got the economy into it's current mess.
Muppet im not at all questioning you at all and i would share a lot of what you said. I used to follow Indymedia but i had to stop as it was so blatantly one sided.
And im not sure if i agree with the lack of policing in the area, just because it wasnt there doesnt mean it wasnt wanted! Their could have been army called in some days between kiltane and belmullet under 16's.
Quote from: ludermor on May 13, 2009, 02:41:23 PM
Muppet im not at all questioning you at all and i would share a lot of what you said. I used to follow Indymedia but i had to stop as it was so blatantly one sided.
And im not sure if i agree with the lack of policing in the area, just because it wasnt there doesnt mean it wasnt wanted! Their could have been army called in some days between kiltane and belmullet under 16's.
I don't doubt that for a second but I'm talking about Bellinaboy, Glenamoy etc.
Whatever about the more recent tragedies and they're efforts to link there, this taunting about the recent death of the guard from Swinford is beyond the Pale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related)
Just saw that on another site - a disgrace. >:(
Stupid comment from a stupid woman.
Scum, no limit to how far they will lower themselves it would appear. Wonder how she felt about the crash out there last week?
Quote from: Owenmoresider on May 18, 2009, 02:15:46 PM
Scum, no limit to how far they will lower themselves it would appear. Wonder how she felt about the crash out there last week?
Shell's own website carries this statement from Terry Nolan, Shell's Deputy Managing Director (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=ie-en&FC2=/ie-en/html/iwgen/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/ie-en/html/iwgen/shell_for_businesses/exploration_production_shared/media/press_clippings/sepil_terry_nolan_commentary_2.html)
"I had thought following Shell's apology for the hurt and division caused by the jailing of the Rossport Five we could all try to move on and find some common ground for a solution."
I can't find the full apology online, if anyone can please post it. In addition I can't find Shell's apology for their part in Paddy McGrath's stroke, again if anyone has a link please post it.
There are no links to apologies from the Gárdaí or the Government for their part in the above because the apologies don't exist.
Shell for all their repeated f**k ups at least appear to have recognised two of them and have made some attempt at apologising.
This woman made a stupid comment, but she didn't wrongly jail people for 94 days.
A bit of perspective is needed here.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 18, 2009, 11:08:56 AM
Whatever about the more recent tragedies and they're efforts to link there, this taunting about the recent death of the guard from Swinford is beyond the Pale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related)
What an ignorant idiot.
I initially had great sympathy for the Shell to Sea campaign but clowns like this really aren't doing their image any good.
Just wondering if an Bord Pleanala approves the planning permission in a few weeks time, will that be the end of the protests?
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 18, 2009, 11:08:56 AM
Whatever about the more recent tragedies and they're efforts to link there, this taunting about the recent death of the guard from Swinford is beyond the Pale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJllMXyyRP0&feature=related)
This one isn't much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NQSWxRDqEI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NQSWxRDqEI&feature=related)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0519/breaking37.html
I see Maura Harrington is heading back to jail.
Greens are the biggest losers from this Corrib gas debacle
Independent.ie - Saturday May 16 2009 - barnold@independent.ie
I made a brief visit to Mayo this week where I discussed with men and women involved in the Shell to Sea controversy their battle to block the refinery there.
On my return I faced two events that bore on this visit and which I intend to address here. The first was the article in yesterday's Irish Independent by Kevin Myers, siding with the State on the Corrib issue, and claiming "due constitutional process". I disagree profoundly with what he says in the article and I sincerely hope that George Lee -- whom Kevin invokes as some kind of answer to the dilemma -- will not get himself involved since he does not have time to research properly the issues involved.
Kevin is fundamentally wrong in claiming due constitutional process. From the start the Corrib gas find has been back to front in almost every way. The political processes have been flawed. The State's handling of Shell and the other oil companies involved has been inept and juvenile. Worse still, the State's protection of its mineral rights and its balanced assessment of them has been little short of suicidal.
The fundamental duty of the politicians of this country is to protect the assets of the State and put them to the beneficial use of the people as carefully and as profitably as they can. They must also be mindful of the health and safety of the people. In respect of the Corrib Project, this is evidently not the case and the facts are widely recognised by the public.
For decades we thought we had no mineral rights. We gave away what little we had. No one clearly knows the extent of this state generosity and the recipients of it are understandably secretive. We seem prepared to go on in the same way into the future.
The Corrib deal is based on the convenience of the gas -- no mean part of its value -- rather than on its net value to the people of Ireland as a national asset. If we own an asset, then we should reap a reward in the profits from that asset as well as enjoying the use of the product. This is clearly not the case and is part of an absurd surrender of rights by the State which it would be quite proper for us to rectify and reverse. Whatever we do, we must be made fully aware of the circumstances. This did not happen with the Corrib Project. It was the first of many ditches where due constitutional process failed.
The planning procedures have been back to front. The map designating the optional places for bringing the gas ashore were, in the first instance, drawn by the oil companies involved in the find and were not subjected to comparable, equal and independent expertise in their assessment. Nor did that extend into other technological fields.
The process began out in the Atlantic Ocean under Enterprise Oil, operating as Enterprise Energy Ireland, subsequently bought by Shell. Others involved include Statoil and Marathon.
Shell has overall supervision now, but in a well-balanced partnership. Their responsibilities, quite rightly, are to their shareholders. This makes it all the more important that the strength and determination of Irish politicians, acting to balance the interests of the Irish people against this vested, capitalist interest, should be wary, subtle and effective. Clearly this has not been the case. It has been anything but.
The Green Party recognised this and took a clear position in favour of the protesters and against the hugely negative environmental impact of much that was being steamrolled through in Mayo. This was one of their strengths as a party and seemed to summarise their independent approach. It gave them one of their electoral pivots in the last election.
I examined this last Saturday and will not go into it again here, save in one important respect. This was that RTE, in the Sunday news programme the following day, carried an interview with John Gormley conducted by Gerald Barry. Since I had provided a reasonably comprehensive agenda for this, I stayed listening. For those who had read what I had written and were seeking to discover what the new electoral programme of the Green Party might possibly be, the opportunity was a good one.
Lo and behold, not a single question was asked based on my argument that the toxic effect of Fianna Fail had destroyed all semblance of the Green Party electoral approach by undermining their policies or causing them to reverse such policies.
This had the effect of causing Gormley to flounder in the face of an interviewer who had no major questions to ask. He was given, instead, a platform from which all political logic had been stripped. This would suggest that RTE has an agenda and it is less connected with confronting politicians over their shortcomings than it is with a wider set of circumstances that don't make sense as far as the interests of the electorate are concerned.
Mercifully, Kevin Myers is not so gullible. He at least recognises that the Corrib Project by Shell, and other oil interests, is the most important project in Ireland in terms of size and symbolism; the largest single construction project in the country; and of vital importance. He misunderstands why these things are important.
Corrib is all these things together with one more: that the real beneficial interests are not ours.
We seem embarrassed to own mineral rights and we seek to give them away. We are really less competent than the Nigerians and more gullible. Deviousness there is as well, but it has not yet been fathomed. Perhaps it never will be.
Shell has certainly handled the situation badly, but they have won. Our politicians have handled it ineptly, and have lost. But nothing quite equates with the self-inflicted damage of the Green Party on this issue.
barnold@independent.ie
Good man Ronan. Taken on Saturday on the first night of the Galway ocean races of which Topaz (Shell) is a main sponsor.
(http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/may2009/ronan.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv0zugBmZWo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv0zugBmZWo&feature=related)
Programme on TV3 now
Paul Williams is incredibly biased.
This programme is a disgrace.
While there is no doubt it is biased what would be the main items you have issue with?
Fr Kevin Hegarty is someone i have huge respect for and he has been one of the most honest intelligent people in the area for the past 20 years.
Any comment on what Niall Harnett has to say?
Quote from: ludermor on June 02, 2009, 09:49:42 PM
While there is no doubt it is biased what would be the main items you have issue with?
Fr Kevin Hegarty is someone i have huge respect for and he has been one of the most honest intelligent people in the area for the past 20 years.
Any comment on what Niall Harnett has to say?
He comes across as a thug. That could partially down to skilled editing or whatever but either way he isn't very likable.
I agree it is a tabloid programme.
If it was more balanced there would be more merit to it.
Quote from: ludermor on June 02, 2009, 09:55:41 PM
I agree it is a tabloid programme.
If it was more balanced there would be more merit to it.
It merely attacked the campaigners without ever looking at any issues.
A pathetic programme from a pathetic journalist.
I have little time for the protesters and most of their antics but a propaganda piece like that moves me much closer to them.
not sure tv3 know the meaning of balance
Completely biased programme but it would madden you seeing the eijits that are out there trying to stop this.
Between the local lad underneath the lorry, the tree hugger from doohoma and that harnett.
Not one of them seems to realise what this means to an area like North Mayo, the amount of work that is being created by this is unreal, and its like the workers said, they wouldn;t be in ireland but for it. People like that harnett dont realise the hardship that people in this area have had to put up with and the difficulty there is in keeping young people in the area.
He'd want to be ran out the place and the sinners with him.
But also the security that having our own gas supply and what that means to Ireland
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 02, 2009, 11:41:05 PM
Completely biased programme but it would madden you seeing the eijits that are out there trying to stop this.
Between the local lad underneath the lorry, the tree hugger from doohoma and that harnett.
Not one of them seems to realise what this means to an area like North Mayo, the amount of work that is being created by this is unreal, and its like the workers said, they wouldn;t be in ireland but for it. People like that harnett dont realise the hardship that people in this area have had to put up with and the difficulty there is in keeping young people in the area.
He'd want to be ran out the place and the sinners with him.
But also the security that having our own gas supply and what that means to Ireland
Enough of the Shell spin.
When this is over there will be 50 jobs. It is unclear how many will go to locals.
We don't own the Gas, Shell do, we will pay market rates and in that case it doesn't matter if it comes from a cave in Afghanistan.
How would the government be able to renegotiate teh deal with Shell, is there a precedent?
There was a good article on the Mayo Newsletter ( i think) where they outline the deals the giv have broken with the people of ireland so why not break the deal with Shell. Not sure how realistic it is.
The following are facts muppet, we get our gas from russia & as we saw a few years ago we're at the mercy of the russians for this, any trouble out there & our gas prices go up. There is a plan to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but in the meantime the corrib gas provides security of supply. So it does make a difference where our gas comes from. Yes we'll pay the going rate for gas but will recoup over 40% on taxes. And the corrib site is providing, currently, hundreds of jobs to the people of north mayo, this will continue for the next few years & even once the plant is up & running will provide local employment & tertiary economy to the area. Preversely the protestors are prob giving lots of locals jobs as security men. In a time when every second person is being laid off maybe its time to look at the facts, get off ur capall mor & cop on.
There were fellas at home joking that Maura Harrington should be nominated as Erris Person of the Year for all the jobs she has brought to the area!
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 03, 2009, 09:19:46 AM
The following are facts muppet, we get our gas from russia & as we saw a few years ago we're at the mercy of the russians for this, any trouble out there & our gas prices go up. There is a plan to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but in the meantime the corrib gas provides security of supply. So it does make a difference where our gas comes from. Yes we'll pay the going rate for gas but will recoup over 40% on taxes. And the corrib site is providing, currently, hundreds of jobs to the people of north mayo, this will continue for the next few years & even once the plant is up & running will provide local employment & tertiary economy to the area. Preversely the protestors are prob giving lots of locals jobs as security men. In a time when every second person is being laid off maybe its time to look at the facts, get off ur capall mor & cop on.
The job is nearly finished. There will be 50 jobs. While 50 jobs are important in the current economic it doesn't excuse Shell's behavior and more importantly the Government who sanctioned it. It will take generations for the damage that Shell did to be repaired.
We will pay market rates and can you give me a source for your 40% tax figure. My understanding is that they will pay corporate tax only and that will be on profits only.
If Russia commit economic suicide and go ahead with a threat to cut off Europe from their gas then Corrib becomes massively significant, to Shell. Shell can sell the gas on to Europe if we don't pay the market rate. We have the same priority as Poland for Corrib gas.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 03, 2009, 09:19:46 AM
The following are facts muppet, we get our gas from russia & as we saw a few years ago we're at the mercy of the russians for this, any trouble out there & our gas prices go up. There is a plan to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but in the meantime the corrib gas provides security of supply. So it does make a difference where our gas comes from. Yes we'll pay the going rate for gas but will recoup over 40% on taxes. And the corrib site is providing, currently, hundreds of jobs to the people of north mayo, this will continue for the next few years & even once the plant is up & running will provide local employment & tertiary economy to the area. Preversely the protestors are prob giving lots of locals jobs as security men. In a time when every second person is being laid off maybe its time to look at the facts, get off ur capall mor & cop on.
The programme was indeed a tabloidesque job. But this is the first time in years where the pro-gas lobby got the same air time as the shell to sea. It was intresting that Willie Corduff's father tried to block the ESB from electrifying the area years ago. The gas is great for the Mayo region and finally these protestors are really shown for to be what they really are and sooner the gas comes a shore the better for us all.
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on June 03, 2009, 12:36:52 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 03, 2009, 09:19:46 AM
The following are facts muppet, we get our gas from russia & as we saw a few years ago we're at the mercy of the russians for this, any trouble out there & our gas prices go up. There is a plan to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but in the meantime the corrib gas provides security of supply. So it does make a difference where our gas comes from. Yes we'll pay the going rate for gas but will recoup over 40% on taxes. And the corrib site is providing, currently, hundreds of jobs to the people of north mayo, this will continue for the next few years & even once the plant is up & running will provide local employment & tertiary economy to the area. Preversely the protestors are prob giving lots of locals jobs as security men. In a time when every second person is being laid off maybe its time to look at the facts, get off ur capall mor & cop on.
The programme was indeed a tabloidesque job. But this is the first time in years where the pro-gas lobby got the same air time as the shell to sea. It was intresting that Willie Corduff's father tried to block the ESB from electrifying the area years ago. The gas is great for the Mayo region and finally these protestors are really shown for to be what they really are and sooner the gas comes a shore the better for us all.
Interesting in a tabloid way. That is smear campaign just like the Superintendent exclaiming that the security guards 'had to run for their lives!' and the other dope saying 'Maura Harrington has her state pension'. Whatever we think of thugs in balaclavas or the likes of Harrington comments like that are irrelevant to the debate.
Here is a fact, the gas is no greater for the Mayo region that it is for the South of France unless you are one of the 50 who get a full time job out of it. Are you one of of hoping to be one of those 50?
Here is another fact, Shell illegally seized land in Erris, sent men to jail for a total of 370 days for trying to stop them and when it was proven to be illegal not a single day was spent in jail by a Shell employee.
Here is another fact, The Gárdaí illegally tried to seize a man's land leaving him paralyzed on one side after a stroke.
They are Mayo people too and if you think that the gas has been great for those Mayo people then fair play to you, but I'd say you would need to spin it a bit better.
Is what Shell is doing now going to do any more damage than what Bord No Mona has done for the past 40 years?
Can't believe anybody takes a TV3 programme serious anyway... I thought that those Gardaí were pig ignorant when Maura Harrington was trying to explain her side. Then again, they're the Gardaí, nothing new there. What are those protestors so Gaeilgeoir???
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 01:24:23 PM
Is what Shell is doing now going to do any more damage than what Bord No Mona has done for the past 40 years?
Bord na Mona employs 1,800 people in Ireland. It is a Semi State so any profit is either re-invested in the (Irish) company or it goes to the State as a dividend.
So far as I am aware Bord na Mona hasn't jailed any Irish citizens.
You are joking Farrandeelin, i really cant belive how much coverage Maura gets! She is the worst possible person to have as a public face. She is down there every single day spouting the same shite.
Would you agree with what Harnett said and how he came accross?
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 01:24:23 PM
Is what Shell is doing now going to do any more damage than what Bord No Mona has done for the past 40 years?
Bord na Mona employs 1,800 people in Ireland. It is a Semi State so any profit is either re-invested in the (Irish) company or it goes to the State as a dividend.
So far as I am aware Bord na Mona hasn't jailed any Irish citizens.
Who cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 01:24:23 PM
Is what Shell is doing now going to do any more damage than what Bord No Mona has done for the past 40 years?
Bord na Mona employs 1,800 people in Ireland. It is a Semi State so any profit is either re-invested in the (Irish) company or it goes to the State as a dividend.
So far as I am aware Bord na Mona hasn't jailed any Irish citizens.
The propaganda goes both ways Muppet.
Shell never jailed anyone, the courts done that, the law of the land.
I assumed when you said
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 12:35:39 PM
It will take generations for the damage that Shell did to be repaired.
]
you meant the enviromental/ecological damage? Or are you sayng if it is a semi sate body they can do whatever damage they want?
The arugment about the deal that was doen at the time is the main issue i have with this developement, in your opinion can this be renegotiated? And if not what exactly would you like done?
Maura has gone on record that she ( speaking on behalf of Sheel to Sea i assume) does not want the gas coming aboard anywhere in north mayo, refined or unrefined. Where can you go from there?
Farrendeelin
Being a teacher yourself how would you feel if one of your senior collegues spent the last 2 years of their career out playing golf or whatever cause that is what she done.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 01:51:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 01:24:23 PM
Is what Shell is doing now going to do any more damage than what Bord No Mona has done for the past 40 years?
Bord na Mona employs 1,800 people in Ireland. It is a Semi State so any profit is either re-invested in the (Irish) company or it goes to the State as a dividend.
So far as I am aware Bord na Mona hasn't jailed any Irish citizens.
Who cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
Exactly my reading of it Gnevin I mean what does corporate profits have to do with damaging people's health. So if Bord Na Mona was found to be damaging people's health its ok because for taxation purposes they are an Irish resident company. The logic there escapes me.
My reading of this - is a little from Column A and a little from Column B. A lot of people are happy to see foreign companies setting up here, others quite rightfully are concerned about the health issues. I wouldn't especially like a high pressure gas pipeline running through my back garden.
The problem with this issue is that the locals have allowed a bunch of dole queue lifers, tree huggers and semi republicans latch onto the issue and use it for their own purposes. As a result people now probably have entirely the wrong impression of the locals, who are quite different from the layabouts.
I like the idea of foreign companies investing here, but I can see the health concerns of the locals. Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby -probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
The gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
The gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
yeah the gas would have to come onshore somewhere but it would cost a damn lot more to build a refinery offshore rather than onshore
Im not sure bout Gnevins statement bout it been as safe but if it is true why spend the extra money if there is no need?
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
The gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
yeah the gas would have to come onshore somewhere but it would cost a damn lot more to build a refinery offshore rather than onshore
So ?
Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Have to say I am caught in the middle of this argument. Shell have been shown to be bullies the world over and show scant regard to anyone but their shareholders. As an engineer I have no doubt that the pipe will not blow up as huge factors of safety in pressure vessel designs would have been used - as is normal. The jobs are also important to Mayo but the fact that our governement has pissed away a natural resource is a disgrace.
One thing I am certain about is that the show on TV3 was a disgracefully biased program. You would think that no "ordinary" locals are against the pipe line. Williams put up two nut jobs as the faces of the protesters and all the calm calculating people were on the side of shell. There was no balance to the report what so ever. Apparently the real ira are also involved (as evidence we had some auld lad roaring about black and tans at security!!) as are CIRA. I'm surprised the Westies or Limerick gangs didn't get a mention too. Suer Paul never lets the big story get in the way of the sensational truth.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
The gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
yeah the gas would have to come onshore somewhere but it would cost a damn lot more to build a refinery offshore rather than onshore
So ?
Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
i'd didn't say it wasn't as i'm no expert in such matters however the reason i said that they could build and offshore refinery and saved themselves a lot of trouble was in reply to Indiana's comment wherby he stated that if shell were cute about it they could have rehoused people near by . I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of either side however if the govenment did not give shell a site to build an onshore refinery then shell would have had no choice to build the refinery at sea and perhaps saved themselves a lot of hassle
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 03, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby they probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother.
or they could have built an offshore refinery
The gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
yeah the gas would have to come onshore somewhere but it would cost a damn lot more to build a refinery offshore rather than onshore
So ?
Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
i'd didn't say it wasn't as i'm no expert in such matters however the reason i said that they could build and offshore refinery and saved themselves a lot of trouble was in reply to Indiana's comment wherby he stated that if shell were cute about it they could have rehoused people near by . I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of either side however if the govenment did not give shell a site to build an onshore refinery then shell would have had no choice to build the refinery at sea and perhaps saved themselves a lot of hassle
Perhaps shell never though that a bunch of NIMBYs like these would be given such national attention and would of been so stubborn.
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
i'd didn't say it wasn't as i'm no expert in such matters however the reason i said that they could build and offshore refinery and saved themselves a lot of trouble was in reply to Indiana's comment wherby he stated that if shell were cute about it they could have rehoused people near by . I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of either side however if the govenment did not give shell a site to build an onshore refinery then shell would have had no choice to build the refinery at sea and perhaps saved themselves a lot of hassle
That is a crucial issue, the Gov gave Shell CPO rights to the land, the first and only time it has been granted to a private company and is one of the biggest scandals of the development after the shite deal that was done in the first place
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 06:15:34 PM
Quote from: small white mayoman on June 03, 2009, 04:56:42 PM
i'd didn't say it wasn't as i'm no expert in such matters however the reason i said that they could build and offshore refinery and saved themselves a lot of trouble was in reply to Indiana's comment wherby he stated that if shell were cute about it they could have rehoused people near by . I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of either side however if the govenment did not give shell a site to build an onshore refinery then shell would have had no choice to build the refinery at sea and perhaps saved themselves a lot of hassle
That is a crucial issue, the Gov gave Shell CPO rights to the land, the first and only time it has been granted to a private company and is one of the biggest scandals of the development after the shite deal that was done in the first place
So this is about money ? What happened to the safety concerns ?
Are any of the Shell to Sea protestors running in the local elections for the area this week?
GNevin
QuoteWho cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
The issue was the pumping of unrefined gas through the world's highest pressure pipeline past houses. That has evolved somewhat over the years but the counter argument, as seen on this thread, is all the employment Shell will create and how we will have our own gas supply. That is why it was worth pointing out there will be 50 permanent jobs and that the gas is not ours, Shell will sell it to the market at market rates.
QuoteThe gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Not quite the point. Onshore refined gas in a pipe is a lot safer than onshore unrefined gas. That was the whole point at the start. Onshore refining was a cost issue for Shell and the Government decided Shell's costs were more important than a couple of small villages in Mayo.
Ludermor
QuoteThe propaganda goes both ways Muppet.
Shell never jailed anyone, the courts done that, the law of the land.
Shell took them to court for blocking Shell access to the locals own land. No Shell, no jail. Turns out Shell were the ones acting illegally but needless to say they have received no sanction.
Quoteyou meant the enviromental/ecological damage?
I was talking about the social damage.
Indiana
QuoteThe problem with this issue is that the locals have allowed a bunch of dole queue lifers, tree huggers and semi republicans latch onto the issue and use it for their own purposes. As a result people now probably have entirely the wrong impression of the locals, who are quite different from the layabouts.
I like the idea of foreign companies investing here, but I can see the health concerns of the locals. Had Shell been cute about it and rehoused people nearby -probably could have saved themselves a lot of bother
You have hit the nail on the head, twice. Protest like Glen of the Downs and the second Manchester runway attract undesirables and that can distract from the real issues. Particularly for tabloid hacks like Williams. Also you are spot on about Shell. Supt. McNamara (?) stated that he had to move protesters on because they were blocking roads for ambulances and fire services.
Ask the locals about blocked roads and how when they called the cops to move Shell 4x4s which were blocking roads the Gardai never came. This was right at the very start and got Shell off to a very bad start with some of the locals. That was before they closed roads themselves when they were moving peat. Families had to phone Shell when they were going to school, shops etc just to be allowed out of their houses. Supt McNamara never mentioned that.
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
GNevin
QuoteWho cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
The issue was the pumping of unrefined gas through the world's highest pressure pipeline past houses. That has evolved somewhat over the years but the counter argument, as seen on this thread, is all the employment Shell will create and how we will have our own gas supply. That is why it was worth pointing out there will be 50 permanent jobs and that the gas is not ours, Shell will sell it to the market at market rates.
QuoteThe gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Not quite the point. Onshore refined gas in a pipe is a lot safer than onshore unrefined gas. That was the whole point at the start. Onshore refining was a cost issue for Shell and the Government decided Shell's costs were more important than a couple of small villages in Mayo.
Says who ? Not Shell, the government or independent experts . So says who? STS?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 07:52:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
GNevin
QuoteWho cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
The issue was the pumping of unrefined gas through the world's highest pressure pipeline past houses. That has evolved somewhat over the years but the counter argument, as seen on this thread, is all the employment Shell will create and how we will have our own gas supply. That is why it was worth pointing out there will be 50 permanent jobs and that the gas is not ours, Shell will sell it to the market at market rates.
QuoteThe gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Not quite the point. Onshore refined gas in a pipe is a lot safer than onshore unrefined gas. That was the whole point at the start. Onshore refining was a cost issue for Shell and the Government decided Shell's costs were more important than a couple of small villages in Mayo.
Says who ? Not Shell, the government or independent experts . So says who? STS?
Let me get this right, you think unrefined gas in a pipe is not less safe than refined gas?
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:54:56 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 07:52:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
GNevin
QuoteWho cares . I though this was about the line being unsafe not the ownership on gas and the profits.
The issue was the pumping of unrefined gas through the world's highest pressure pipeline past houses. That has evolved somewhat over the years but the counter argument, as seen on this thread, is all the employment Shell will create and how we will have our own gas supply. That is why it was worth pointing out there will be 50 permanent jobs and that the gas is not ours, Shell will sell it to the market at market rates.
QuoteThe gas would have to come on shore some where . Offshore refining is as safe as onshore refinery according to independent sources
Not quite the point. Onshore refined gas in a pipe is a lot safer than onshore unrefined gas. That was the whole point at the start. Onshore refining was a cost issue for Shell and the Government decided Shell's costs were more important than a couple of small villages in Mayo.
Says who ? Not Shell, the government or independent experts . So says who? STS?
Let me get this right, you think unrefined gas in a pipe is not less safe than refined gas?
It's not about what you or me think. It's what the experts think . I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe.
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
Shell took them to court for blocking Shell access to the locals own land. No Shell, no jail. Turns out Shell were the ones acting illegally but needless to say they have received no sanction.
Quoteyou meant the environmental/ecological damage?
I was talking about the social damage.
Can you give me links to that? I honestly didn't think that was the case
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
Shell took them to court for blocking Shell access to the locals own land. No Shell, no jail. Turns out Shell were the ones acting illegally but needless to say they have received no sanction.
Quoteyou meant the environmental/ecological damage?
I was talking about the social damage.
Can you give me links to that? I honestly didn't think that was the case
The problem with this is that the (normally) credible media report only the official side of the story while to other side tends to be only reported on sites such as Indymedia and Blogs. I won't post links to them as even I accept they are not credible.
My understanding was that Shell acquired land under a CPO. The men prevented work being done on that land and Shell got a court order against the men. When they broke the order they were sent to jail for contempt of court. Then it subsequently emerged that the CPO was illegal.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.
I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:00:31 PM
The problem with this is that the (normally) credible media report only the official side of the story while to other side tends to be only reported on sites such as Indymedia and Blogs. I won't post links to them as even I accept they are not credible.
My understanding was that Shell acquired land under a CPO. The men prevented work being done on that land and Shell got a court order against the men. When they broke the order they were sent to jail for contempt of court. Then it subsequently emerged that the CPO was illegal.
True. And its a shame that no media outlet will report honestly and impartially for both sides.
True bout the CPO but i didnt realise it was found to be illegal. It was certainly immoral and should never have been granted but i didnt think it was illegal. Was it just for the terminal or along the route?
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.
I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?
As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .
Quote from: ludermor on June 03, 2009, 09:12:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:00:31 PM
The problem with this is that the (normally) credible media report only the official side of the story while to other side tends to be only reported on sites such as Indymedia and Blogs. I won't post links to them as even I accept they are not credible.
My understanding was that Shell acquired land under a CPO. The men prevented work being done on that land and Shell got a court order against the men. When they broke the order they were sent to jail for contempt of court. Then it subsequently emerged that the CPO was illegal.
True. And its a shame that no media outlet will report honestly and impartially for both sides.
True bout the CPO but i didnt realise it was found to be illegal. It was certainly immoral and should never have been granted but i didnt think it was illegal. Was it just for the terminal or along the route?
I thought it was the route but remember if the gas was refined (offshore or wherever) then the route was less of a problem.
I found an article in the Guardian quoting the judge as follows:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/18/oil.ireland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/18/oil.ireland)
"A high court judge jailed them indefinitely, until they "purge their contempt" and agree to let Shell on to their land after compulsory purchase procedures. But the standoff continues."
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 09:16:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.
I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?
As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .
Who are they?
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:20:41 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 09:16:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 03, 2009, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 03, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp (http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp)
The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.
As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.
Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.
Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?
::)
Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.
I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?
As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .
Who are they?
Independent experts.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/2C9E7E78-C18E-481C-AB76-B58EEA47A071/0/CorribPipelineSafetyReviewR8391FINALHighRes.pdf
http://www.corribgaspipeline.com/uploads/file/further-information/02-TAG-Report-to-Minister-Final.pdf
Not one independent expert has recommended off shore refining as far as I know
GNevin you seem to be arguing two different things here.
You seem to think that a report that supported (at a greatly reduced pressure) Shell's pumping of unrefined gas through a village as meaning that it is equally safe to pump refined gas through the same village.
There is no one on the planet that would claim the risk was equal.
Quote from: turk on June 03, 2009, 07:32:44 PM
Are any of the Shell to Sea protestors running in the local elections for the area this week?
Anyone?
Quote from: turk on June 03, 2009, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: turk on June 03, 2009, 07:32:44 PM
Are any of the Shell to Sea protestors running in the local elections for the area this week?
Anyone?
Nope, according to the documentary last night anyway. Not from Erris myself but I haven't heard any of them on local radio either.
http://www.shellguilty.com/shell-settles/ (http://www.shellguilty.com/shell-settles/)
New York– After legal battles lasting nearly fourteen years, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has been forced to pay a $15.5 million out-of-court settlement. Plaintiffs from the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta have successfully held Shell accountable for complicity in human rights atrocities committed against the Ogoni people in the 1990s, including the execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
"Let there be no doubt that Shell has emerged guilty. With this settlement, Shell is seeking to keep the overwhelming evidence of its crimes away from the scrutiny of a jury trial,"
The company faces (more) legal action there for repeated oil spills, brought by residents of the Niger Delta,
"Shell will be dragged from the boardroom to the courthouse, time and again, until the company addresses the injustices at the root of the Niger Delta crisis and put an end to its environmental devastation,"
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
Quote from: RMDrive on June 10, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
Impartial or not Shell aren't handing over 15.5M just for the craic.
This whole thing is just another in the litanty of FF disastrous decisions that are haunting our country. How Cowen can say with a straight face that they have a mandate to govern is beyond me. Is he really that thick or is it just his ignorance?
Quote from: RMDrive on June 10, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction)
Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2009, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on June 10, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction)
Well I think the funny bit was that despite this story being reported in probably every good newspaper in the world, you chose to quote a source that nobody could possibly take seriously rather than the myriad of impartial sources you could have chosen.
Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2009, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on June 10, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction)
The fact that you fail to see the humour is a reflection on you rather than me. For gods sake the source you quoted was called "shellguilty". Why not quote one of the many references you have included above (none of which I going to read BTW) rather than such an obviously biased one?
And please don't try to associate the fact that I found your post funny with any opinion I may or may not have on the issue in question.
Quote from: Hound on June 10, 2009, 02:45:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2009, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on June 10, 2009, 12:15:37 PM
www.shellguilty.com/
LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me. :)
I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction)
Well I think the funny bit was that despite this story being reported in probably every good newspaper in the world, you chose to quote a source that nobody could possibly take seriously rather than the myriad of impartial sources you could have chosen.
More ironic than humourous.
The report was judged fit for purpose for the veracity, accuracy and conciseness of content and at the same time encapsulating the significance of the news, actually superior to the other mainstream reports :)
I assumed that anyone entering this thread would have heard about this news item in the last days, unless they had gone deaf and blind.
And my only thought was to enter the info into the thread.
If you had not heard of the Shell Ogona outcome before you opened this thread and had a doubt about the veracity of the report I linked then I would seriously doubt the level of your general knowledge
So you agree that www.shellguilty.com is an impartial source?
The last few post epitomises part of the problem with Shell in Mayo.
Undeniable facts are less important than who said them.
Quote from: ludermor on June 10, 2009, 04:17:29 PM
So you agree that www.shellguilty.com is an impartial source?
WTF are you on about?
Shell, to the whole world, being forced to admit their guilt, makes shellguilty.com an interesting credible source you might think. A sort of a judicial process vote of ultimate confidence on the website's raison d'etre.
Do you have any comment to make on the article information? anything at all?
Is there one line in what I quoted here or referenced to, that you would like to bring to task and question?
Please feel free to do so.
I just asked a question and you answered it.
Whats the story with the sinking of the trawler though lads?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shell-denies-involvement-in-trawler-sinking-414485.html (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shell-denies-involvement-in-trawler-sinking-414485.html)
According to the IT the Shell statement reads
"Shell E&P Ireland said in a statement issued to RTÉ that it "emphatically rejected" any allegation that "people employed on the Corrib gas project were involved in any way in the incident which led to the sinking of the Iona Isle ".
So, they don't deny that someone from Shell, not directly connected to the Corrib project, could have hired the mob who done the deed.
Would this be a crime in the catagory of attempted murder?
Shell denies trawler sinking plot
4 hours ago
Energy giant Shell has strongly denied any involvement in the alleged sinking of a trawler carrying protesters opposed to its controversial new gas terminal in Co Mayo.
Two men were rescued from the stricken boat Iona Isle in the early hours of Thursday morning, with one claiming a masked and armed gang boarded and sank the vessel.
Pat O'Donnell, a prominent critic of Shell's planned refinery at Glengad, said they were held for almost two hours before being forced to flee the vessel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iDmEUuPjFkMhe1nxOndFmU6A6FMg
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0627/1224249653722.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0627/1224249653722.html)
WORK BY the Solitaire ship on laying the offshore pipeline began yesterday in Broadhaven Bay as there were more calls for political leadership and legal clarification on the issues involved.
The Department of Transport confirmed last night that no order had been issued for a 500-metre exclusion zone around the Solitaire. It has issued only one marine notice on work in the bay, which makes no reference to an exclusion zone. Gardaí have said they are policing an exclusion zone "passed by the department".
Earlier, the Erris Inshore Fishermen's Association (EIFA), which has a legal agreement with Shell to facilitate the work, said it was "gravely concerned" at the Government's refusal to clarify the legal situation.
"It is not good enough for a legislative authority to refuse to take responsibility for this project once again, as it has done from day one," EIFA chairman Eddie Diver told The Irish Times.
He was commenting on Thursday's arrest of fishermen Pat and Jonathan O'Donnell, who had been out on the water watching their fishing gear hours before the arrival of the Solitaire. Both fishermen's boats have been detained indefinitely by gardaí under the Maritime Safety Act.
In fairness to the Irish Times they try to report the facts. The facts may leave more questions than answers but reflects the reality accurately.
Now they have to re-route the pipe for around 5 miles. Delighted so I am. The only problem is what part of unspoiled scenery will be effected (sp) next?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on November 03, 2009, 10:25:04 PM
Now they have to re-route the pipe for around 5 miles. Delighted so I am. The only problem is what part of unspoiled scenery will be effected (sp) next?
Can you post a link? I can't find anything about this. Good man
This is from MWR, it's actually 5 kms not 5 miles but it's still great!
"AN BORD PLEANALA HAS DEFERRED A DECISION ON GRANTING SHELL PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ITS CONTROVERSIAL ONSHORE MODIFIED GAS PIPELINE ROUTE IN NORTH MAYO.
IT HAS ASKED SHELL TO ADDRESS A NUMBER ISSUES RELATING TO THE SAFETY OF THE 9KM PIPELINE ROUTE THAT WILL TAKE GAS FROM THE SHORELINE AT GLENGAD TO THE COMPANY'S GAS REFINERY IN BELLANABOY.
SHELL MUST MAKE SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO ITS ONSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD BY FEBRUARY.
UNDER THE STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION THE BOARD HAS IN PRINCIPLE APPROVED THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS.
AN BORD PLEANALA HIGHLIGHTS PROBLEMS WITH ABOUT 5 KM OF THE ROUTE THROUGH ROSSPORT.
SAYING HOUSES ALONG THE ROUTE ARE WITHIN THE HAZARD RANGE OF THE PIPELINE SHOULD A FAILURE OR FAULT OCCUR.
THE BORD ALSO WANTS A HIGHER RISK THRESHHOLD IMPOSED ON THE PIPELINE ROUTE – SHELL WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET UK STANDARDS.
IN ADDITION, ITS TELLING THE COMPANY.TO GO BACK TO AN EARLIER ROUTE OPTION THAT WAS REJECTED AND ESSENTIALLY SENDS THE PIPELINE UP THE BAY.
IN A STATEMENT SHELL SAYS IT REMAINS "FIRMLY OF THE VIEW THAT THE PIPELINE AS DESIGNED IS SAFE AND MEETS ALL INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACATICE".
IT CONCLUDES THAT IT WILL NOW GIVE DETAILED CONSIDERATION TO THE BOARD'S SPECIFIC REQUESTS.
INITIAL REACTION FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS IS THAT AN BORD PLEANALA HAS TAKEN ON BOARD LOCAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED TO IT DURING AN ORAL HEARING ON THE MATTER LAST SUMMER"
Maura Harrington was on Mid West Radio this morning with Tommy Marren (she's the leading Shell to Sea campaigner for those who don't know). She calls this victory as only a minor victory, that the new route will cause its own problems (close to a lake which supplies water for all of Erris) and the only outcome they'll be happy with is Shell moving their refinary to sea.
What has happened with An Bord Pleanála is a huge turnaround though.
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on November 04, 2009, 10:06:54 AM
Maura Harrington was on Mid West Radio this morning with Tommy Marren (she's the leading Shell to Sea campaigner for those who don't know). She calls this victory as only a minor victory, that the new route will cause its own problems (close to a lake which supplies water for all of Erris) and the only outcome they'll be happy with is Shell moving their refinary to sea.
What has happened with An Bord Pleanála is a huge turnaround though.
It is good news and can be seen as a vindication of the struggle of people like Harrington and Willie Corduff. However, Shell's big wallet would worry me as I'm not altogether convinced of the integrity of our planning system.
Why don't Shell just move the refinery to sea? Practically everyone is happy then (barring the taxpayer who sold the rights for a song - thank you politicians!).
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 04, 2009, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on November 04, 2009, 10:06:54 AM
Maura Harrington was on Mid West Radio this morning with Tommy Marren (she's the leading Shell to Sea campaigner for those who don't know). She calls this victory as only a minor victory, that the new route will cause its own problems (close to a lake which supplies water for all of Erris) and the only outcome they'll be happy with is Shell moving their refinary to sea.
What has happened with An Bord Pleanála is a huge turnaround though.
It is good news and can be seen as a vindication of the struggle of people like Harrington and Willie Corduff. However, Shell's big wallet would worry me as I'm not altogether convinced of the integrity of our planning system.
Why don't Shell just move the refinery to sea? Practically everyone is happy then (barring the taxpayer who sold the rights for a song - thank you politicians!).
No matter what your viewpoint you have to ask how can an immense project commence claiming to have satisfied all planning criteria { which has never been questioned by either the media or our elected representatives (with the exception of Cowley who lost his seat)} and then a few years later one of our planning authorities rules against it, after a huge amount of work has been carried out.
Whether you think it should be refined at sea or on land you would have to say our planning process is either a complete shambles or it has been a shambles just for this project only for some reason. Neither is acceptable.
Quoteyou would have to say our planning process is either a complete shambles or it has been a shambles just for this project only for some reason.
It's the former, due solely to the clientelism that we laughingly call our political system/government.
Has the route where Shell were allowed to CPO the land from the locals now been declared unsafe? Or is the unsafe route all under water?
Quote from: Billys Boots on November 04, 2009, 05:15:03 PM
Quoteyou would have to say our planning process is either a complete shambles or it has been a shambles just for this project only for some reason.
It's the former, due solely to the clientelism that we laughingly call our political system/government.
Thats a good word (clientelism) to use, to describe the process.
I would have thought that given the severe financial difficulties the country finds itself in that EVERYONE would have been pushing like mad to get this thing up and running.
Surely if there is a mountain of gas out there under the Atlantic in Irish coastal waters it should be exploited?
Quote from: Armaghtothebone on November 04, 2009, 10:07:02 PM
I would have thought that given the severe financial difficulties the country finds itself in that EVERYONE would have been pushing like mad to get this thing up and running.
Surely if there is a mountain of gas out there under the Atlantic in Irish coastal waters it should be exploited?
We gave it away for nothing.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/workers-killed-in-us-power-plant-gas-blast-445236.html (http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/workers-killed-in-us-power-plant-gas-blast-445236.html)
Workers killed in US power plant gas blast
08/02/2010 - 07:35:17
A massive blast blew apart a US power plant as workers building it purged natural gas lines, killing at least five people and injuring a dozen or more.
The blast at the Kleen Energy Systems plant in Middletown, Connecticut, shook homes for miles.
Middletown's mayor Sebastian Giuliano said at least 12 people were injured.
Deputy fire marshal Al Santostefano said crews were still searching for survivors in the rubble of the plant, about 20 miles south of Hartford.
Santostefano said earlier about 50 people were in the area yesterday when the explosion occurred.
He said it was difficult to tell how many people were at the plant because multiple contractors were working there, each with their own employee lists.
The 620-megawatt plant was being built to produce energy primarily using natural gas.
Santostefano said workers for construction company O&G Industries were purging the gas lines, a procedure he called a "blow-down", when the explosion occurred.
Lynn Hawley, 54, of Hartland, Connecticut, said her son Brian, 36, a pipe fitter at the plant, called her from his mobile phone to say he was being rushed to Middlesex Hospital.
"He really couldn't say what happened to him," she said. "He was in a lot of pain and they got him into surgery as quickly as possible."
She said he had a broken leg and was expected to survive.
Hospitals reported some seriously injured patients.
The thundering blast shook houses for miles.
"I felt the house shake, I thought a tree fell on the house," said Middletown resident Steve Clark.
Kleen Energy Systems began building the power plant in February 2008. It had signed a capacity deal with Connecticut Light and Power for the electricity produced by the plant. Building was due to be completed by the middle of this year.
The company is run by president and former Middletown City Council member William Corvo.
Plants powered by natural gas are taking on a much larger role in generating electricity for the US.
Gas emits about half the greenhouse gases of coal-fired plants and new technology has allowed natural gas companies to begin to unlock gas supplies that could total more than 100 years at current usage levels.
Natural gas is used to make about a fifth of the nation's electricity.
Connecticut governor Jodi Rell was visiting the scene today and called out a specialised search and rescue team to help firefighters.
The state's Emergency Operations Centre in Hartford was also activated, and the Department of Public Health was called to provide tents at the scene for shelter and frontline medical treatment.
Rell said the emergency teams were expected to work through the night.
Daniel Horowitz, a spokesman for the US Chemical Safety Board, said the agency was mobilising an investigation team from Colorado and hoped to have the workers on the scene later today.
In February 2009, an explosion at a We Energies coal-fired power plant near Milwaukee burned six workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is still investigating.
In the past few years, an explosion at a Dominion Virginia Power coal-fired plant in Massachusetts killed three workers in November 2007, while one worker and nine others were injured at an American Electric Power plant of the same type in Beverly, Ohio, in January 2007.
Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/workers-killed-in-us-power-plant-gas-blast-445236.html#ixzz0exOc7lig
CSR i dont think so.
Why will the Irish media not report any negative story involving Shell?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbGs2NWIF3o&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbGs2NWIF3o&feature=player_embedded)
Hmm, its Indy Media .....
So Michael Dwyer and 2 or 3 others that worked for Shell were being paid to instigate a civil war in Bolivia to try and get control back of oil/gas reserves from the Bolivian gorvernment who had nationalised it a year earlier ???
While i am very cynical about everything Shell do, i think this is a bit of a stretch....
I do agree however that there has been a huge failure by the Irish media to investigate the sinking of Pat O'Donnells boat, the legality of efforts to prevent him from fishing and the late night attach on Willie Corduff. In the first and last cases, there is absolutely no way i could believe that the incidents were instigated by locals with no invovlement in Shell who just wanted the project to progress for the betterment of the Erris region.
Quote from: blast05 on September 12, 2010, 09:07:07 PM
Hmm, its Indy Media .....
So Michael Dwyer and 2 or 3 others that worked for Shell were being paid to instigate a civil war in Bolivia to try and get control back of oil/gas reserves from the Bolivian gorvernment who had nationalised it a year earlier ???
While i am very cynical about everything Shell do, i think this is a bit of a stretch....
I do agree however that there has been a huge failure by the Irish media to investigate the sinking of Pat O'Donnells boat, the legality of efforts to prevent him from fishing and the late night attach on Willie Corduff. In the first and last cases, there is absolutely no way i could believe that the incidents were instigated by locals with no invovlement in Shell who just wanted the project to progress for the betterment of the Erris region.
I accept it is Indymedia but the Irish media and indeed Ireland in general are turning a blind eye to the Shell debacle. As for Dwyer, it didn't say he was starting a civil war. It did lead you draw that conclusion. It would be nice to see a real Irish journalist investigate the facts but instead were are left with the likes of Myers calling for Shell to hire people to 'crack the skull' of a protestor (even if it is Maura Harrington).
The Natural Gas there would pay for Anglo and Irish Nationwide all on it own. Many countries (including Bolivia ;D) have revoked the terms of contracts with oil companies. Given that we are bankrupt is it too much to ask that Shell pay for the Billions of euros of resources we have given them? Either that or the next budget better contain a huge tax hike for Gas refining.
I agree. Its time our Govt copped on and got "paid" (officially) by Shell for all they've done for them.
I know this has been mentioned by Jim Corr and eirigí whom alot people here don't exactly hold in high regard. I've one arse cheek on the fence when it comes to them but anyway ignore them for the minute.
There's increasing noise about the possibilities of nationalising our gas and oil reserves. What would it take and have we valid independent estimates on its value.
What would it take to nationalise it? I think in these times it might get a bit more support.
Planning permission finally received, about time
The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 11:11:36 AM
Planning permission finally received, about time
The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.
Well said Mayo4Sam. All the relevant permissions are now in place, this is a legally operating project , but the protests/ intimidation etc. will still go on. Witing for the backlash 1,2,3,4,5...
Quotewe only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea
What do you mean exactly by this?
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on January 20, 2011, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 11:11:36 AM
Planning permission finally received, about time
The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.
Well said Mayo4Sam. All the relevant permissions are now in place, this is a legally operating project , but the protests/ intimidation etc. will still go on. Witing for the backlash 1,2,3,4,5...
A little bird (and a good source) from up that way explained all the protests to me one day.
Apparently a ring leading prominent protester lost out on a personal payoff for pipes going through
his land.
When I say
his land, he doesnt exactly own it.
His parents own the land that he farms, and as his name is on not the deeds as it was not passed over to him yet as they are still alive.
This guy is apparently a big instigator who is miffed that he didnt receive money directly from shell. Touting things about safety and all that bulls**t argument is only a smokescreen for the truth that this guy wants a payoff.
But of course that all could be lies spun by Shell in a web of deceit. :P
Quote from: AbbeySider on January 20, 2011, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on January 20, 2011, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 11:11:36 AM
Planning permission finally received, about time
The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.
Well said Mayo4Sam. All the relevant permissions are now in place, this is a legally operating project , but the protests/ intimidation etc. will still go on. Witing for the backlash 1,2,3,4,5...
A little bird (and a good source) from up that way explained all the protests to me one day.
Apparently a ring leading prominent protester lost out on a personal payoff for pipes going through his land.
When I say his land, he doesnt exactly own it.
His parents own the land that he farms, and as his name is on not the deeds as it was not passed over to him yet as they are still alive.
This guy is apparently a big instigator who is miffed that he didnt receive money directly from shell. Touting things about safety and all that bulls**t argument is only a smokescreen for the truth that this guy wants a payoff.
But of course that all could be lies spun by Shell in a web of deceit. :P
These protest, all about money, never :P. Heard the same thing about someone in the fishing industry down there who tried to claim some sort of compensation, it turned out the he had not fished for the seven previous 7 seasons and had only bought a boat 6 weeks before the claim for compo. went in.
Quote from: Billys Boots on January 20, 2011, 11:45:19 AM
Quotewe only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea
What do you mean exactly by this?
I mean the sea bed that belongs to Ireland stretches out into the Atlantic and is small relative to say GB or Norway.
Also the sea is quiet deep and doesn't lend itself to drilling, it would be considered deep sea and is not financially viable to drill as there is little information and thus no indication of fossil fuels.
As a Mayoman I do feel sympathy for locals that genuinely feel their livelihood is being threatened, but IMHO there are few of these involved in these protests.
Im not sure the money is that big an issue, anyone who wanted a payoff/compo got it. Shell have been throwing money around the last few years , something they didnt do at the start of the project.
I'd tend to agree Luder, Shell made a lot of mistakes at the start by not discussing things with locals and finding a resolution rather than just bulldozing through.
Since they have done everything they can but the trouble had already started.
I'm thinking some of the lads here have seen some of that money.
As for Mayo4Sams 'facts':
1. "shell drills". Shell didn't even do the tests and as for "we didn't give it away for free". Yes we did. Why would you state otherwise? It is a fact that we did not and will not charge for the gas. The will be a tax on the PROFITS only. If you think this is reasonable I'd like to do business with you.
2. You state that Shell followed the 'planning permission on pipes'. That is just one part of the story and even then Shell had to reduce the capacity dramatically.
3. 'If the tap is turned off we are the first to go". This is complete nonsense as if any producer such as Russia or Norway turns off the tap everyone on the pipeline goes, not just us. This gas is of benefit to Shell only and the 50 odd full time jobs that will remain. It makes no difference to Ireland whether the gas comes from the Corrib field or Siberia. Some return for the billions of euros of gas out there.
As for 'a little bird', well all I can say is that the money Shell has thrown around is obviously bearing fruit. History will be re-written and some local trouble-maker will be remembered as the cause of everything. The local crank seems to me to have been right on an awful lot of issues. He had a lot of victories against the poor unfortunate oil company that is here merely to bestow their charity upon us.
The oil company wins in the end, as it always does.
'Se na Fianna Fooled'
Muppet, like I stated there are two ways to explore for fossils fuels currently being used, the sale of exploration rights or the setting up of a joint venture. GB and Ireland are examples of selling exploration rights and taxing profits, joint ventures are in Norway, Brazil, Ghana. Would model would you have proposed?
Shell had to reduce capacity on the basis of public pressure on Planning, not on any actual fault in their design. You say this is only part of the story, what is the other part?
And as for security of supply, 60% of Ireland gas is used on electricity generation. It does matter where we get our gas from. EU directive 713/2009 sets out laws on security of supply, such as in the case of a gas shortage, where we are obliged to move full capacity from Corrib, service residential customers and then export the remainder to GB/Europe. Without Corrib we would be reliant on overflow from GB and in competition with mainland Europe for it.
If u think there is a different interpretation of this I'm open to hearing it.
Everything I've said is based on facts.
And as for the "50 jobs" in my OPINION having gas in the west will attract a lot more jobs to the area due to decreased operating costs...............but thats just in my opinion.
And for the record in live in Knockmore, a good 40-50 miles from the pipeline
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 04:03:38 PM
Muppet, like I stated there are two ways to explore for fossils fuels currently being used, the sale of exploration rights or the setting up of a joint venture. GB and Ireland are examples of selling exploration rights and taxing profits, joint ventures are in Norway, Brazil, Ghana. Would model would you have proposed?
I would not give away Billions of euros worth of a natural resource for free. 'There are currently two models' means nothing. New business models appear everywhere all the time as there is nothing preventing the creation of a new model. Also surely if Ghana can manage a joint-venture approach we could?
Quote
Shell had to reduce capacity on the basis of public pressure on Planning, not on any actual fault in their design. You say this is only part of the story, what is the other part?
What about Shell taking land off locals under a now illegal CPO? What about Shell and the courts jailing the Rossport 5 for protesting against that illegal CPO?
Quote
And as for security of supply, 60% of Ireland gas is used on electricity generation. It does matter where we get our gas from. EU directive 713/2009 sets out laws on security of supply, such as in the case of a gas shortage, where we are obliged to move full capacity from Corrib, service residential customers and then export the remainder to GB/Europe. Without Corrib we would be reliant on overflow from GB and in competition with mainland Europe for it.
If u think there is a different interpretation of this I'm open to hearing it.
Everything I've said is based on facts.
You will have to explain to me how that EU directive requires us to give our natural gas away for nothing, required us to give an illegal CPO to Shell and decides our planning laws for us. That EU directive appears to me to be a general policy, the words Shell, Corrib and even Ireland don't appear in the document.
Remember the two ministers chiefly involved in setting the terms for Shell and its predecessor who actually did the drilling? Where are they now?
None of that is to say we shouldn't extract the gas. However I find the stench of corruption overwhelming and I find it nauseating to blame the locals, especially by their own.
If u can give me the answer to the first question or an example of how it is done differently anywhere in the world it would help.
Like I said it hasn't been given away for free and the model Ireland is using is one that is used throughout the world. Ghana can set up a JV because they have resource rich seas, something we do not, although more research may provide more details on this. Again it goes back to funding, if te government spent millions on exploration and found nothing there'd be complaints over that too.
How was the CPO illegal for Shell? It was granted by Mayo Co Co, the only authority that could grant it
The EU directive has to do with the security of supply issue, as I've stated, it sets out generalities over this matter to which, though not specifically named Ireland and Corrib are bound.
You have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it.
And for the record saying you would charge a company, such as shell for something which may or may not exist in viable quantities does not count as an alternative, there is a reason that there is no model like this in the world, because it would not be financially viable for Shell/BP etc to work like this n
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 04:37:21 PM
If u can give me the answer to the first question or an example of how it is done differently anywhere in the world it would help.
Like I said it hasn't been given away for free and the model Ireland is using is one that is used throughout the world. Ghana can set up a JV because they have resource rich seas, something we do not, although more research may provide more details on this. Again it goes back to funding, if te government spent millions on exploration and found nothing there'd be complaints over that too.
How was the CPO illegal for Shell? It was granted by Mayo Co Co, the only authority that could grant it
The EU directive has to do with the security of supply issue, as I've stated, it sets out generalities over this matter to which, though not specifically named Ireland and Corrib are bound.
You have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it.
And for the record saying you would charge a company, such as shell for something which may or may not exist in viable quantities does not count as an alternative, there is a reason that there is no model like this in the world, because it would not be financially viable for Shell/BP etc to work like this n
Step 1. Rule out alternatives.
Step 2: Say 'ah well tell me how you would do it differently'.
Step 3. Reject all criticism and refer everyone back to step 1.
Fianna Fail 101.
QuoteYou have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it
You denied we gave the gas away for free and now call it a generalism asking for an alternative while ruling out any alternative. Here is an alternative, leave it in the ground until a non-corrupt competent generation arrives instead of giving it away for nothing. Anything is a better alternative than giving it away for nothing.
And you are winding me up on the CPO. Abusing the law to take land off citizens illegally should go down as a very serious crime. Of course it was only the citizens who went to jail.
Granting a CPO to a private company has only been done once ever in the history of the state and that was to Shell.
Id be surprised if the Co.Co could issue a CPO? Id imagine this would have to be issued by a government dept.
So ur alternative is to leave it in the ground?
It'll do a lot of good there. I've stated the model we are using is widely used and is one of two models I know of, without any alternative being shown you don't have a leg to stand on.
Waffle and generalities don't get u far, "I don't know how you'd do it but definitely not like that"
There are two main areas of criticism regarding the Corrib gas field:
1. The terms of the License and the return to the exchequer.
In 1999 the total return to the exchequer (actually it was made 'extra-exchequer') for the rent of all of the roughly 25 exploration sites, 5 exploration options and around 13 petroleum option sites and was £1,400,000.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/9E3C20D4-A51C-47ED-B28A-2CBC4E9182B6/0/FOI102007Report15.pdf (http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/9E3C20D4-A51C-47ED-B28A-2CBC4E9182B6/0/FOI102007Report15.pdf)
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/512086F9-ECB9-4E2D-BD0C-E393D8D3A01D/0/FOI102007Report14.pdf (http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/512086F9-ECB9-4E2D-BD0C-E393D8D3A01D/0/FOI102007Report14.pdf)
The terms of the rent were: £66 /sqkm rising to £264/ sqkm.
(In the case of the Corrib field this exploration was not carried out by Shell. Shell later acquired one of the companies involved and took over the operation.)
2. The conduct of Shell on its arrival and the design and implementation of the project.
Mayo4sams three facts are basically straw man arguments defending Shell from irrelevant allegations.
Fact 1. Shell weren't even involved in the exploration. The criticism at this stage is directed at two disgraced former minister for the terms they set on behalf of the State.
Fact 2. Defending the capacity of the pipeline only ignores the CPO issues, the Rossport 5 and the problems with the routing that were upheld by An Bord Pleanala. And it even ignores that the capacity had to be significantly reduced down to the max 110 bars it is today.
Fact 3. This is great for Ireland. Having a gas supply is a good thing. No doubt about it. However this does not justify all that happened, especially with regard to the two main criticisms I mention at the start of this post.
Well ur first fact is irrelevant in my book, Shell weren't involved in the exploration but presumably they paid market value for the company that did, this value would have taken into account Corrib even though it is relatively small. So Shell now have these rights, having paid for them, legitimately.
I can't comment on the rent paid as I have no reference but presumably this would have been done on a combination of probability of finding gas and inticing exploration, so I would have no problem there.
On the CPOs were granted to Shell, it's easy to make them the big bad corporation but as a company they were given CPOs, should they not have used them? Their design has met all safety standards applicable.
And like you say gas is great for Ireland
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on January 20, 2011, 08:28:22 PM
Well ur first fact is irrelevant in my book, Shell weren't involved in the exploration but presumably they paid market value for the company that did, this value would have taken into account Corrib even though it is relatively small. So Shell now have these rights, having paid for them, legitimately.
I can't comment on the rent paid as I have no reference but presumably this would have been done on a combination of probability of finding gas and inticing exploration, so I would have no problem there.
On the CPOs were granted to Shell, it's easy to make them the big bad corporation but as a company they were given CPOs, should they not have used them? Their design has met all safety standards applicable.
And like you say gas is great for Ireland
Like I said there are two main areas of criticism, the terms and the way Shell behaved.
Your earlier lists of facts avoid those issues.
It certainly is easy to make them the big bad company, however in Shell's favour they have apologised publicly for two of their worst acts. But you can hardly advocate their innocence when they admitted guilt themselves.
"The Pipe" anocht ar TG4 2130.
On now TG4.
It was good enough I thought but completely one sided. Like watching a film half way and then turning off - I really felt that I was only getting half the story.
Did an good job of portraying the human element in the whole thing. The chief is some boy!
Quote from: RMDrive on February 09, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
It was good enough I thought but completely one sided. Like watching a film half way and then turning off - I really felt that I was only getting half the story.
Did an good job of portraying the human element in the whole thing. The chief is some boy!
Shell were offered a chance to speak/put forward their views but didn't.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 10, 2011, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: RMDrive on February 09, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
It was good enough I thought but completely one sided. Like watching a film half way and then turning off - I really felt that I was only getting half the story.
Did an good job of portraying the human element in the whole thing. The chief is some boy!
Shell were offered a chance to speak/put forward their views but didn't.
Yeah a few people at work were telling me that today. How many generations until the effects of this will be gone? Lots of bitterness around I'd say.
http://door32.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/the-crash-the-bailout-and-the-theft-of-ireland's-energy-resources/ (http://door32.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/the-crash-the-bailout-and-the-theft-of-ireland's-energy-resources/)
As Ireland's government steers the country into an economic black hole there are many of us left scratching our heads as to why they are not using the massive wealth of this nation to fund the recovery and our future, and to tell the bankers where to go with their imaginary gambling debts.
As I've watched this country self-destruct over the last two years since the derivatives bubble was burst, I ask myself why is it happening? Why in a country rich with investment, talent, and resources and with a reasonably healthy economy with good exports, is the whole thing spiraling into a never ending cycle of un-payable debt? Believe me it is un-payable, just like all the third world debt issued by the IMF and World Bank before this.
We all know by now that the bankrupt international banks, who issue credit out of thin air, crippled the industries that support our jobs and thus our economy and sent the whole world crashing into what many believe from understanding history, is a deliberate recession from which, as history shows, the main banks will once again come out the other side more wealthy and larger than before. One need only look at the 1907 and 1929 crashes to see this consolidation process in action in the years that followed.
None of us Joe Public were in particularly problematic debt. Just the normal loans for a home and a car, nothing special. Nothing we couldn't manage on our salaries. Yet still here we are now indebted, by the actions of a government with no mandate, to the tune of around €18,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The interest alone will cost around €3,000 per year in extra taxes for every working person in the country before any of the principle loan is paid off.
So how are we expected to pay back this loan for a debt that we never incurred in the first place? A debt that only exists in the ups and downs of market values and shares in a fictional world of computerised credit, and not a single solid asset in sight. Yes, you guessed it. We are to pay the fictional debt with our real assets. Those being our labour, our children's labour and our grandchildren's labour, as well as the selling off of our public services to private corporations owned by the banks to be run for profit by them. These will include our roads for tolling, our health services, our utilities like the ESB and Bord Gais, and our water suppliers, even our ports and airports.
It doesn't stop there though because as well as these institutions and all their associated assets, which will undoubtedly be asset stripped, the bankers are looking to take our €20+ billion of national pension fund which has been accumulated to pay the pensions of the people of Ireland in just such a difficult period. Finally, and the nub of this article, the international bankers will be given by our government the country's tangible wealth in the form of land, minerals, our forestry, and most importantly our fuel resources in gas and oil.
Unbeknown to most people in Ireland, this country is one of the wealthiest countries in the world for natural mineral wealth. An inspection of the applications for mining licenses will reveal among other precious minerals like zinc and lead, a wealth of silver and gold buried under the ground. In fact the volumes of minerals found in Ireland per square mile make it the richest country in the world for mineral deposits. This is very valuable and why this has not been exploited is unexplained. Yet there is another kind of gold that Ireland possesses in spades that is being exploited now. The black gold !
Off the west coast of Ireland there is an enormous volume of oil and gas. The government (Dept. of Communications, Energy Natural Resources) themselves valued west coast deposits in 2008 at €540 billion although the price of oil and gas then was a fraction of what it is now. This is a resource that could give everyone in Ireland free energy in the same way that Norway funnel their oil wealth to their people, and still make huge profits selling energy to the UK and Europe.
The Corrib oil field currently being exploited by Shell, that we hear about for all the wrong reasons, is the only oil and gas field the public are aware of, but there are huge basins of oil and gas known to exist off Limerick and Kerry. One in particular called Dunquin gas field which is a proven field and is described by the operator (Exxon/Mobil) as "one of the biggest fields in the world" containing an estimated 25 trillion cubic feet of gas and over 4 billion barrels of oil. This alone could keep Ireland running for over 60 years.
The reserves off the west and north west coasts in total have been estimated at around 130 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of gas. A virtual underwater Saudi Arabia. Yet it doesn't end there. The Lough Allen Basin is a huge inland gas field in the northwest which has been known for some 40 years now and contains 9.4 trillion cubic feet of gas. Enough to power Ireland for the next 25 years but it has has yet to be tapped. There are known fields off the south coast that have yet to be announced.
Furthermore, new oil and gas basins have been announced this year off the coast of Dublin by Tony O'Reilly's company Providence Resources and it's UK partners. O'Reilly is also partnering Exxon in Dunquin. The east coast fields have been estimated in the hundreds of billions in value to Ireland and yet along with the riches of the west and south, the inland gas and the wealth of minerals that we are literally tripping over here, we are still bankrupt ! Does this make any sense to you?
Unfortunately over the last 35 years successive governments have eliminated all of Ireland's rights to capitalise on it's own resources. They have legislated away their percentage share of the gas and oil down from 50% to 0%. Yes zero. So the oil and gas is wholly owned by the oil companies royalty free. Successive ministers like Ray Burke and Bertie Ahern have been instrumental in this process which even saw the reduction in tax on oil profits to only 25% where other countries charge almost 70%. This also is only payable after all exploration and development costs are deducted as well as future decommissioning costs which effectively negates the corporation tax too.
Ireland should be the richest country in Europe with the majority of Europe's oil and gas and fishing waters, as well as the richest mineral deposits. Yet our government has given the fisheries away to the EU, many of the mining operations are owned by foreign companies and now all the energy reserves have been given away to large multinational companies who are under no obligation to even sell the gas or oil to Ireland and we will be forced to buy our own gas and oil back at market prices from the oil giants.
This situation cannot possibly be accidental. The legislating away of our resources was a deliberate act and in this writers opinion it would seem to be a criminal act of some description. This kind of intergenerational legislative deceit could only be done with cooperation and foreknowledge and looks on the surface to be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of the state.
It even far exceeds the apparent fraud of the bank bailout wherein we the people are paying off UK and German banks, who held high risk bonds in bad banks, by using loans from the very same UK and German banks to pay their bonds, and we are charged interest for the privilege of bailing out their gambling debts to boot. Does this seem right to anyone except our politicians? Nobody of sound mind could fail to see the deliberate fraud of this and the role being played by our government in assisting this.
When the government accept this IMF bailout they will be relinquishing control of the nation and handing over the financial management of the country to the IMF, which in effect is only a front for the UK and German banks that funded the bailout. It is therefore they who will decide that Irelands assets are sold off and to who. Watch this space and we will find with very little investigation that subsidiary companies of the banks may well benefit greatly from this fire sale.
Already Bertie Ahern in his cushy new job as head of the International Forestry Fund, a corporation set up by a Swiss financial services provider Helvetia Wealth AG, is bidding to buy and privatise Coalite, which controls all Irelands forestry. This would mean 7% of Ireland's land mass would be in the hands of one of these international banks. It was a recommendation of the An Bord Snip Nua report in 2009 and the appointment of Ahern in 2010 tells me that this was probably already a done deal before the bailout ever reared it's head.
The level of collusion to pull off this takeover of assets has to go to the highest levels of government in order to orchestrate this over such a long period of time, because not only was the oil and gas legislation nullified but so was the banking control legislation in the same period.
Indeed if we look to those people who have been in positions of power and also regularly attended secret meetings like the annual Bilderberg meeting or the Tri-lateral Commission meeting along with all of these bankers, oil companies, other multinationals and politicians in Europe and worldwide, then we may be seeing the root of the conflict of interests of our own politicians and should ask who are they really working for?
If these meetings aren't shady enough it is made more suspicious by the fact that the Tri-lateral Commission meeting this year was held over three days in Dublin this Spring, without ever getting a mention on the national news despite 300 of the world's richest and most powerful people being in Dublin and being dined by the President.
If we want to know why we are being asset stripped, then this is a good place to start to find your culprits, and perhaps these are he questions that people should be asking the election canvassers this week instead of who is going to fill the potholes?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0301/1224291080638.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0301/1224291080638.html)
Criticism as Carey signs off on Corrib pipeline
DEAGLÁN de BRÉADÚN and LORNA SIGGINS
THERE HAS been widespread criticism of a decision by Minister for Energy Pat Carey to sign key consents for the last section of Corrib gas pipeline on the day of the general election.
The Department of Energy has said the consent to construct the pipeline and approval of the project's amended plan of development was issued as a matter of course after An Bord Pleanála approved the new pipeline route in January.
However, Green Party sources say a recommendation on the consent application by Shell EP Ireland had not arrived on former energy minister Eamon Ryan's desk before he left office.
An Taisce says it is seeking a judicial review of the Bord Pleanála decision, as it believes it is in breach of several EU directives.
The approved 8km of pipeline linking the landfall to the gas terminal at Ballinaboy runs through a special area of conservation in Sruwaddacon estuary.
Sinn Féin's spokesman on natural resources Martin Ferris described the Minister's move as "sharp practice".
"Pat Carey issued this order on the day that he lost his seat and Fianna Fáil lost power. He had no political or moral authority to give the go-ahead to a pipeline over which many concerns still exist even with the changes made following the Bord Pleanála ruling.
"The Corrib field will bring little or no economic benefits to the Irish people under current revenue terms.
"Indeed, Shell now have been given the go-ahead to build infrastructure that will pump the gas from the west coast to their interconnectors in Britain," Mr Ferris said.
Outgoing Labour spokesman on marine issues Michael McCarthy expressed concern at the timing of the Minister's action.
"I would be very worried about ministers signing orders in relation to projects like this, in the dying days of the Government. Making decisions of this scale at this juncture in terms of where we are politically is very serious indeed."
Socialist Party MEP and re-elected TD for Dublin West Joe Higgins said: "This is just outrageous and it is grotesque that a government whose credibility has been shattered and that has been utterly disowned by the Irish electorate would make such a momentous decision.
"I call on the incoming government, which looks like Fine Gael and Labour, to denounce this and say that it just will not honour this decision.
"This is an attempt to complete the total sell-out by Fianna Fáil to the multinationals. Mr Carey is putting the final stamp on this monumental and shameful sell-out.
"The Socialist Party and the United Left Alliance will be strenuously campaigning in the Dáil and outside it for natural resources to be brought back into public ownership and developed with public investment," Mr Higgins said.
Labour Party president Michael D Higgins said last night that it was "very wrong" for such a decision to be signed on the day of the election, given the public interest in the project.
"This is not a decision that one would regard as "clearing one's desk" as minister, as it has very serious implications," Mr Higgins told The Irish Times .
"This project has been dogged by decisions taken which were not before the public gaze, and this will just add to the lack of accountability. It is very unhelpful," Mr Higgins said.
Pobal Chill Chomáin chairman Vincent McGrath, whose group had objected to the pipeline routing, said he was "not surprised" at Mr Carey's move.
"I'm sure nobody will be surprised that the final act of this discredited Government was to put the interest of a major developer ahead of those of a community," Mr McGrath said.
The constitution clearly states that such energy assets belong to the state but that parliament can dictate how the assets are to be managed. A minister can decide on behalf of the Irish States to sign a no gain 10 year/20 year/100 year lease.
No political party has even bothered to review this fundamental constitutional black hole. In fact not many people in Ireland are actually aware of what their rights as citizens are.
Some people think the public interest is served by allowing such corporate interests to set up home in dubious circumstances, given tax immunity and then ask of their new lords and masters 'please have you got a start, kind sir'.
What we have in Ireland is dictatorship by parliament, subject to the terms of the constitution, which gives the government free reign to do whatever.
Quote from: Main Street on March 01, 2011, 01:24:09 PM
The constitution clearly states that such energy assets belong to the state but that parliament can dictate how the assets are to be managed. A minister can decide on behalf of the Irish States to sign a no gain 10 year/20 year/100 year lease.
No political party has even bothered to review this fundamental constitutional black hole. In fact not many people in Ireland are actually aware of what their rights as citizens are.
Some people think the public interest is served by allowing such corporate interests to set up home in dubious circumstances, given tax immunity and then ask of their new lords and masters 'please have you got a start, kind sir'.
What we have in Ireland is dictatorship by parliament, subject to the terms of the constitution, which gives the government free reign to do whatever.
So far €3 billion has been spent by Shell and its partners in trying to get gas ashore. Not one penny has been received yet. That's massive risk.
If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax. Not sure whether there's a royalty on top of that once the gas starts to flow (I heard the Greens talking about that).
If we had done this all ourselves, we'd have had to hire Shell or similar experts to do the work. So there would be a big margin added on to the €3bn cost, at least double. Plus no guarantee that nothing will go wrong.
Quote from: Hound on March 01, 2011, 01:47:53 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 01, 2011, 01:24:09 PM
The constitution clearly states that such energy assets belong to the state but that parliament can dictate how the assets are to be managed. A minister can decide on behalf of the Irish States to sign a no gain 10 year/20 year/100 year lease.
No political party has even bothered to review this fundamental constitutional black hole. In fact not many people in Ireland are actually aware of what their rights as citizens are.
Some people think the public interest is served by allowing such corporate interests to set up home in dubious circumstances, given tax immunity and then ask of their new lords and masters 'please have you got a start, kind sir'.
What we have in Ireland is dictatorship by parliament, subject to the terms of the constitution, which gives the government free reign to do whatever.
So far €3 billion has been spent by Shell and its partners in trying to get gas ashore. Not one penny has been received yet. That's massive risk.
If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax. Not sure whether there's a royalty on top of that once the gas starts to flow (I heard the Greens talking about that).
If we had done this all ourselves, we'd have had to hire Shell or similar experts to do the work. So there would be a big margin added on to the €3bn cost, at least double. Plus no guarantee that nothing will go wrong.
Ahern reduced royalties from 50% to 0% in 1992.
Also that €3 Billion can be written off against any liability to the state. Once the gas flows it will have cost them nothing.
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 01:52:41 PM
Ahern reduced royalties from 50% to 0% in 1992.
Also that €3 Billion can be written off against any liability to the state. Once the gas flows it will have cost them nothing.
Dunno anything about 50%, but I know that for Kinsale there was a royalty payment which effectively turned the 25% tax into 40% tax. I think I heard a green td saying that some royalty was reinstated during this term of government, but not sure.
What do you mean by writting off the €3 billion? That's the money that's already been spent by Shell (and there'll be a lot more to come if they build the new pipeline under the lake/inlet as now planned), and its not going to be remibured by the State.
Quote from: Hound on March 01, 2011, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 01:52:41 PM
Ahern reduced royalties from 50% to 0% in 1992.
Also that €3 Billion can be written off against any liability to the state. Once the gas flows it will have cost them nothing.
Dunno anything about 50%, but I know that for Kinsale there was a royalty payment which effectively turned the 25% tax into 40% tax. I think I heard a green td saying that some royalty was reinstated during this term of government, but not sure.
What do you mean by writting off the €3 billion? That's the money that's already been spent by Shell (and there'll be a lot more to come if they build the new pipeline under the lake/inlet as now planned), and its not going to be remibured by the State.
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?
I have no financial qualifications whatsoever so the following should be taken with all the relevant caveats:
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/ida-ireland-publications/IDA%20Tax%20Brochure%202010.pdf (http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/ida-ireland-publications/IDA%20Tax%20Brochure%202010.pdf)
From IDA Ireland, tax info for foreign investors.
Tax Relief Available
Interest
Interest on borrowings used for a trade or business is tax-deductible on an accruals basis, subject to some exceptions. Interest on borrowings used for non-trading purposes, for example, for the acquisition of shares in another company, may be deductible on a paid basis, subject to certain conditions.
Capital Allowances
Generally, with the exception of certain intellectual property (see page 9) and leasing taxpayers, accounting depreciation is not deductible in calculating business profits for tax purposes. Capital allowances (or tax depreciation) are, however, available in relation to expenditure on:
— Plant and Machinery
— Expenditure on plant and machinery, fixtures and fittings, and certain software, etc., may be written off at 12.5% per annum on a straight-line basis over an 8-year period. — Expenditure on scientific equipment is eligible for a 100% year one capital allowance.
— The cost of energy efficient equipment is granted at 100% year one capital allowance (in the year of the expenditure) as part of the Irish Government's Green Initiative.
Eligible equipment includes:
— motors and drivers;
— systems lighting;
— Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS);
— Information Communications Technology (ICT);
— heating and electricity provision;
— heating ventilation and air-conditioning control systems;
— electric and alternative-fuel vehicles;
— refrigeration and cooling systems;
— electro-mechanical systems;
— catering and hospitality equipment.
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?
"Writing off overheads against tax" is a complete misnomer.
Shell will pay tax on its profits. To calculate the profits, its basically income less expenses.
25% of its profits will be paid in tax. There's no further offset for expenses incurred as they've already been taken into account when calculating the profits.
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?
"Writing off overheads against tax" is a complete misnomer.
Shell will pay tax on its profits. To calculate the profits, its basically income less expenses.
25% of its profits will be paid in tax. There's no further offset for expenses incurred as they've already been taken into account when calculating the profits.
Any chance of a link or something?
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2011, 10:44:39 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?
"Writing off overheads against tax" is a complete misnomer.
Shell will pay tax on its profits. To calculate the profits, its basically income less expenses.
25% of its profits will be paid in tax. There's no further offset for expenses incurred as they've already been taken into account when calculating the profits.
Any chance of a link or something?
Feck's sake muppet, its not rocket science!
Every single company out there, in every line of business, pays tax on its profits. Its profits are income less expenses. But the tax rate for petroleum companies is twice that of normal trading companies.
In the interests of balance there are convincing cases made for both arguments made here: http://www.politics.ie/environment/5385-corrib-gas-field-property-irish-people.html (http://www.politics.ie/environment/5385-corrib-gas-field-property-irish-people.html)
Hound, it seems from my link above that Capital Allowances are available against 'profits for tax purposes' on Plant and Machinery among other things, surely that is a large part of the €3 Billion?
Like I said I am not qualified to give an informed opinion on this stuff.
Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2011, 12:17:55 PM
Hound, it seems from my link above that Capital Allowances are available against 'profits for tax purposes' on Plant and Machinery among other things, surely that is a large part of the €3 Billion?
Generally expenditure that qualifies for capital allowances isn't as good as ordinary expenditure, because you only get the tax relief over 8 years rather than in the year you incurred it.
There are special rules for petroleum companies, so capital allowances don't really apply. So its pretty much simply tax on whatver their net profit is. And they don't pay tax until they make a net profit.
I wonder will the new government give any though to increasing the 25% tax rate?
Its worth remembering that when the petroleum tax rate of 25% was brought it, the standard rate was 40% or 43%, and the 25% rate was brought in to encourage exploration activity. But it remained the same as the standard rate reduced.
So perhaps increasing the 25% rate would impact on future exploration activities. I know there is other tests being carried out on the west coast in the hope of finding another Corrib.
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2011, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2011, 12:17:55 PM
Hound, it seems from my link above that Capital Allowances are available against 'profits for tax purposes' on Plant and Machinery among other things, surely that is a large part of the €3 Billion?
... its pretty much simply tax on whatver their net profit is. And they don't pay tax until they make a net profit.
So is net profit defined as profit net of costs INCLUDING exploration costs?
News Release
Issued by Dublin Shell to SeaFriday, March 4th, 2011For immediate release
CORRIB 'WILL NEVER PAY TAX', SAYS PROJECT'S FORMER MD
-- Varadkar 'clueless' over tax regime for gas & oil fields --
The Corrib Gas project will never pay tax, according to the former MD of the lead company in the project. This contradicts the claim made this week by Leo Varadkar TD that the State "stands to gain at least 25 per cent of profits from Corrib and the sooner the gas is brought ashore, the sooner that money can be used to fund essential services."
Speaking at a panel discussion in Dublin last December, Brian O'Cathain, who was Managing Director of Enterprise Energy Ireland when that company was the developer of the Corrib project, predicted that the project would never pay tax: "The problem with Corrib is that, because of the very long delay ... the project will never go into profit. The impact of that is that Corrib will never pay tax."
(Audio clip: http://bit.ly/fk6LRv)
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerins said today: "Leo Varadkar is either misleading the public or else he is clueless. It is important for people to understand that under Ireland's bizarre licensing terms, the tax revenue from gas and oil fields will be much lower than 25% of its revenue, or even of its real profits."
"Corrib will probably pay little or no tax, for at least two reasons. Firstly, the licensing terms introduced by Ray Burke and Bertie Ahern mean that the developer can write off 100% of costs incurred over the past 25 years, including the cost of other unsuccessful wells, before declaring profits.
"Secondly, the disastrous way in which the Government has handled the project, encouraging Shell to force through an experimental inland refinery against the wishes of the local community, has led to enormous delays. This has meant lower profits and thus lower tax revenue."
"Had the Corrib project been developed in a safe manner, according to international best practice, with the gas processed before passing through inhabited areas, the gas would have come ashore years ago, and then some of the tax Mr Varadkar speaks of would have been paid. But of course, even then this would have been far lower than 25% of the value of the gas which the company sells to Irish consumers."
Varadkar, who looks set to become Minister for Energy and Natural Resources in the new government, appears to misunderstand Ireland's current tax arrangements for oil and gas fields. Speaking on Tuesday, he defended outgoing Minister Pat Carey's decision to sign, on the day of the general election, key consents for the last section of the Corrib gas pipeline. Varadkar said: "The State stands to gain at least 25 per cent of profits from Corrib and the sooner the gas is brought ashore, the sooner that money can be used to fund essential services."
ENDS
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
did they play the recording on the radio this morning Declan ?
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
its all about civil liberties and human rights, did you not know (ordinary workers rights from been stopped from doing a decent days work been blocked by these people does not matter it seems) . A Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this.
The most ironic thing is that North Mayo is covered in "end electronic harrassment in Mayo now" or something similar. Its funny electronic surveillence is ok if it serves the shell to sea purpose. This Shell to Sea outfit are now seen to be what they really are, small minded,bash a guard gang and becoming more and more irrelevant each day.
Quotedid they play the recording on the radio this morning Declan ?
Yep on Newstalk:
http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/49/tuesday/2/popup (http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/49/tuesday/2/popup) Around the 40 mins mark
http://www.wsm.ie/c/garda-corrib-rape-pipeline
This is pretty damning. There is a link to the audio and an explanation as to how the protesters got the recording.
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on April 05, 2011, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
its all about civil liberties and human rights, did you not know (ordinary workers rights from been stopped from doing a decent days work been blocked by these people does not matter it seems) . A Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this.
The most ironic thing is that North Mayo is covered in "end electronic harrassment in Mayo now" or something similar. Its funny electronic surveillence is ok if it serves the shell to sea purpose. This Shell to Sea outfit are now seen to be what they really are, small minded,bash a guard gang and becoming more and more irrelevant each day.
I wouldnt be on the side of the protestors on the vast majority of their views but i dont know to many people who jokes about rape when they are having the craic. Have a read through the link i had earlier, there wasnt much surveillence done it was the cops completely f**king up! ( provided of course that is what happened , i would not be surprised)
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on April 05, 2011, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
its all about civil liberties and human rights, did you not know (ordinary workers rights from been stopped from doing a decent days work been blocked by these people does not matter it seems) . A Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this.
The most ironic thing is that North Mayo is covered in "end electronic harrassment in Mayo now" or something similar. Its funny electronic surveillence is ok if it serves the shell to sea purpose. This Shell to Sea outfit are now seen to be what they really are, small minded,bash a guard gang and becoming more and more irrelevant each day.
Have you heard the transcript? If so, how on earth can you describe it as 'a couple of guards having the craic'? It is disgraceful behaviour and leaving aside whatever side you tend to think is right or wrong in the overall context, this incident on its own is frightening and degrading. I hope they get their papers.
QuoteA Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this
Are you for real? Having the craic joking about raping somebody is not remotely within the bounds of any standards.
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on April 05, 2011, 11:35:09 AM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on April 05, 2011, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
Gardaí alleged to have joked about threatening to rape Corrib protesters
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 07:24 AM
A senior officer from outside the Mayo region has been appointed to examine remarks alleged to have been made by two Gardaí about two women who were arrested in Co Mayo last week.
The women were arrested for public order offences during a protest near the controversial Corrib gas pipeline route last Thursday.
It has been alleged that the gardaí were heard joking about threatening to deport and rape one of the women who had refused to give her name to officers.
The alleged remarks were recorded on a video camera which had been taken from the women and which was left running while the gardaí travelled to Belmullet garda station.
Dublin Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerrins said: "This is shocking and extremely serious. It is very frightening for those of us involved in the campaign.
"Gardaí are the people that women are supposed to trust when they need to report a rape. Gardaí are supposed to be responsible for bringing rapists to justice."
Heard this tape on the radio this morning - What a shower
its all about civil liberties and human rights, did you not know (ordinary workers rights from been stopped from doing a decent days work been blocked by these people does not matter it seems) . A Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this.
The most ironic thing is that North Mayo is covered in "end electronic harrassment in Mayo now" or something similar. Its funny electronic surveillence is ok if it serves the shell to sea purpose. This Shell to Sea outfit are now seen to be what they really are, small minded,bash a guard gang and becoming more and more irrelevant each day.
Have you heard the transcript? If so, how on earth can you describe it as 'a couple of guards having the craic'? It is disgraceful behaviour and leaving aside whatever side you tend to think is right or wrong in the overall context, this incident on its own is frightening and degrading. I hope they get their papers.
i'd say they will
Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2011, 11:37:08 AM
QuoteA Couple of guards having the craic, big deal, more money for the tax payer to pay for this
Are you for real? Having the craic joking about raping somebody is not remotely within the bounds of any standards.
Just saw the transcript now. Didn't realise it involved suggestinons of rape. Apologies.
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2011, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2011, 12:17:55 PM
Hound, it seems from my link above that Capital Allowances are available against 'profits for tax purposes' on Plant and Machinery among other things, surely that is a large part of the €3 Billion?
... its pretty much simply tax on whatver their net profit is. And they don't pay tax until they make a net profit.
So is net profit defined as profit net of costs INCLUDING exploration costs?
Just seen this now Hardy.
Yes, net profit after all their costs including exploration costs.
QuoteSpeaking at a panel discussion in Dublin last December, Brian O'Cathain, who was Managing Director of Enterprise Energy Ireland when that company was the developer of the Corrib project, predicted that the project would never pay tax: "The problem with Corrib is that, because of the very long delay ... the project will never go into profit. The impact of that is that Corrib will never pay tax."
And of course this is correct, they will only pay tax if they make a profit!! Just like every other company out there. And the protests have added hugely to the costs incurred.
Oil/gas exploration is a big gamble. They may or may not make a profit, and they could make a huge loss. I don't think it would have made any sense for the Irish government to do this alone and run the risk of massive losses.
Personally I still believe Corrib will make a profit and the exchequer will benefit to the tune of 25% of the profit, with no risk having been taken. That's a good deal for us IMO.
QuoteI don't think it would have made any sense for the Irish government to do this alone and run the risk of massive losses
Would it run into the 90 billion or so the banks have cost us?
Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
Personally I still believe Corrib will make a profit and the exchequer will benefit to the tune of 25% of the profit, with no risk having being taken. That's a good deal for us IMO.
There are two halves to this.
1) we gave away the gas for free and continue to do so;
2) the company who get to benefit from this remarkable give-away will pay tax if and when they make a profit;
Shell may and hopefully will give some badly needed revenue but giving away such an enormous asset for free is idiotic and treasonous. Some of us think we detect the whiff of brown paper from the whole thing.
We could still impose more taxes on Shell if we wish.
Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 04, 2011, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2011, 12:17:55 PM
Hound, it seems from my link above that Capital Allowances are available against 'profits for tax purposes' on Plant and Machinery among other things, surely that is a large part of the €3 Billion?
... its pretty much simply tax on whatver their net profit is. And they don't pay tax until they make a net profit.
So is net profit defined as profit net of costs INCLUDING exploration costs?
Just seen this now Hardy.
Yes, net profit after all their costs including exploration costs.
Including writing off all exploration costs anywhere in Irish seas for the past 25 years.
QuoteOil/gas exploration is a big gamble. They may or may not make a profit, and they could make a huge loss. I don't think it would have made any sense for the Irish government to do this alone and run the risk of massive losses.
Why do you think it was an either/or option?
QuotePersonally I still believe Corrib will make a profit and the exchequer will benefit to the tune of 25% of the profit, with no risk having been taken. That's a good deal for us IMO.
Maybe it appears a good deal when you consider that Ray Burke and associate gombeens were involved.
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 06:45:55 PM
Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
Personally I still believe Corrib will make a profit and the exchequer will benefit to the tune of 25% of the profit, with no risk having being taken. That's a good deal for us IMO.
There are two halves to this.
1) we gave away the gas for free and continue to do so;
We didn't. Clearly, the tax on profits, if any, is the price we charged. If Shell can't make a profit, you can be damn sure an Irish semi-state set up to bring in the gas wouldn't. Think FÁS, 42 days holidays for public servants, restrictive practices etc., etc., etc.
Quote
2) the company who get to benefit from this remarkable give-away will pay tax if and when they make a profit;
They should do it for no benefit? They should pay tax on losses?
Quote
We could still impose more taxes on Shell if we wish.
Absolutely. We'd need to be wise about it, though, and not deter other companies from getting involved with the Irish state if it gets a reputation for changing the rules after the exploration results prove favourable.
Hardy, let's try this.
I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.
You build, train etc and extract the gold.
If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.
Either way I lose all of my natural resources.
Meanwhile the two agents who orchestrated the deal on my behalf include one known corrupt official and another who has a remarkable gift for picking horses.
IMHO it would be better if we left it there for a non-corrupt industrious generation to come along. But of course if that happens now the gas will be gone.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 05, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.
Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.
But like I say, it mite not be all it seems
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 05, 2011, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 05, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.
Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.
But like I say, it mite not be all it seems
They will not and should not be fired.
Any action taken against them probably would be struck out as they hardly gave their consent to have the recording broadcast which is required by law in Ireland.
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 09:49:45 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 05, 2011, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 05, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.
Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.
But like I say, it mite not be all it seems
They will not and should not be fired.
Any action taken against them probably would be struck out as they hardly gave their consent to have the recording broadcast which is required by law in Ireland.
I have no doubt they'll get away with having a good old joke about raping women while wearing their Garda uniforms. What is he even more worrying is that these 2 gardai sounded like the had the maturity of 10 year olds, how do such clowns qualify to be gardai??
On the radio on the way home a woman from some rape crisis group noted that the biggest fall out could be that women who were raped might now not associate Gardai as being a group they could go to report such an attack.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 05, 2011, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 05, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.
Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.
But like I say, it mite not be all it seems
If it was false the Guard PR machine woul dhave cut this off immediately
QuoteI have no doubt they'll get away with having a good old joke about raping women while wearing their Garda uniforms. What is he even more worrying is that these 2 gardai sounded like the had the maturity of 10 year olds, how do such clowns qualify to be gardai??
On the radio on the way home a woman from some rape crisis group noted that the biggest fall out could be that women who were raped might now not associate Gardai as being a group they could go to report such an attack.
In my experience they represented most of the people I've had the "pleasure" of interacting with from the Guards.Your second point is well made and I wonder what the GRA have to say about the matter
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 05, 2011, 10:05:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 09:49:45 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 05, 2011, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 05, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.
A pair of goons.
There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.
Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.
But like I say, it mite not be all it seems
They will not and should not be fired.
Any action taken against them probably would be struck out as they hardly gave their consent to have the recording broadcast which is required by law in Ireland.
I have no doubt they'll get away with having a good old joke about raping women while wearing their Garda uniforms. What is he even more worrying is that these 2 gardai sounded like the had the maturity of 10 year olds, how do such clowns qualify to be gardai??
On the radio on the way home a woman from some rape crisis group noted that the biggest fall out could be that women who were raped might now not associate Gardai as being a group they could go to report such an attack.
I'm not defending them, it was very childish at best and they should be sanctioned but it should be kept in perspective. Remember the taunting about Garda McCallion's death?
I see where you are coming from muppet but the recording is very worrying and, actually disturbing. The Gardai are people who are used to dealing with cases of sexual assault, would have seen more than most of us the horrendous effect that has on the victims and three of them still feel they can 'joke' about it. The lady from the Rape Crisis Centre is right, this could have an impact of stopping women from reporting rape to the Gardai. I know they weren't aware of the recording and there are certain issues in that regard but this wasn't just a bit of banter. Banter was referring perhaps to the Crusty Camp - still offensive, mind you. Talking about rape in the way they did - I would say that goes right to the heart of their ability to do their job. But they won't be fired. Gardaí don't get fired.
A bit of sexist banter, Gene Hunt style, wouldn't be a major problem in my opinion. Joking about rape is not appropriate for policemen.
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 07:13:00 PM
I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.
You build, train etc and extract the gold.
If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.
Either way I lose all of my natural resources.
But your natural resource is actually worth feck all, because it costs so much money to extract it. You get a good deal in your example, you get a share of the profits, but if it had cost more than the gold was worth to extract it, you don't share the losses - whereas if you'd tried to extract it yourself you could've lost a lot.
It looks like we're not the only ones with issues in relation to gas exploration - it looks like a filthy business, in every sense.
Furious MPs round on DECC over shale gas (Source: edie.net)
A perceived 'lack of transparency' on the policing of shale gas exploration was seized upon by angry MPs today (April 5).
Members of the influential Energy and Climate Change Committee, led by chairman Tim Yeo, rounded on Charles Hendry and Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) official Simon Toole.
Mr Hendry, minister for climate change and energy, was told by Mr Yeo a lack of transparency was 'retarding rather than advancing' the cause of shale gas.
The meeting heard shale had the potential to become a 'game-changer' in world energy markets - having already transformed the US from a major importer to an exporter of gas.
However, a lack of regulation and environmental scrutiny of shale, which the committee heard was twice as carbon intensive as coal, was not helped by DECC's approach.
The committee was angered that DECC had carried out a behind closed doors investigation into shale without informing it.
Mr Yeo said: "The suspicion in the United States of the environmental impacts of shale gas has been greatly increased by the reluctance of the companies and, in some cases the regulators, to disclose to the public what's actually happening."
Mr Hendry, who apologised for not telling the committee, said: "I think if people see there are things going on behind closed doors, which they can't understand and don't know about they become suspicious often without warrant."
Mr Yeo also asked why Cuaddrilla, the only business at the time investigating shale gas in the UK, was not consulted by DECC, he said: "It seems a bit strange the one company already started operating in this country was not asked for evidence."
DECC licensing, exploration and development director, Simon Toole, was forced to admit he didn't know who had been contacted for the 'low key' investigation and said it was an 'oversight' not to contact cuaddrilla.
MPs also asked Mr Hendry whether the UK should take the lead on establishing Europe wide regulations on drilling for shale, however the minister felt this would only bring regulation down to the 'lowest common denominator'.
He also dismissed concerns other countries, for instance Poland, would exploit lower levels of regulation to get ahead of the UK on shale, claiming the population there were as concerned as in Britain about environmental impacts.
Quote from: Hound on April 06, 2011, 07:21:00 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 07:13:00 PM
I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.
You build, train etc and extract the gold.
If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.
Either way I lose all of my natural resources.
But your natural resource is actually worth feck all, because it costs so much money to extract it. You get a good deal in your example, you get a share of the profits, but if it had cost more than the gold was worth to extract it, you don't share the losses - whereas if you'd tried to extract it yourself you could've lost a lot.
This is where we completely disagree. To my way of thinking is there is no point in extracting it if we can't get the value for it. We should have left it until we could realise at least some of its worth. Giving it away for nothing is idiotic no matter how you look at it.
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on April 05, 2011, 10:36:15 PM
I see where you are coming from muppet but the recording is very worrying and, actually disturbing. The Gardai are people who are used to dealing with cases of sexual assault, would have seen more than most of us the horrendous effect that has on the victims and three of them still feel they can 'joke' about it. The lady from the Rape Crisis Centre is right, this could have an impact of stopping women from reporting rape to the Gardai. I know they weren't aware of the recording and there are certain issues in that regard but this wasn't just a bit of banter. Banter was referring perhaps to the Crusty Camp - still offensive, mind you. Talking about rape in the way they did - I would say that goes right to the heart of their ability to do their job. But they won't be fired. Gardaí don't get fired.
I agree. Leaving "banter" and the rights or wrongs of the gas dispute etc out of it the issue here is the trust factor when it comes to rape victims willingness to complain to Gardai. Those clowns on that recording did massive damage to that level of trust and I'm sure some of their genuine colleagues who've dealt with rape victims must want to wring their necks. They should suffer severe sanctions. Not sure about sacking but Red&Green makes a good point about their maturity levels. Makes you question the recruitement criteria in the force.
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 07:13:00 PM
Hardy, let's try this.
I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.
You build, train etc and extract the gold.
If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.
Either way I lose all of my natural resources.
Meanwhile the two agents who orchestrated the deal on my behalf include one known corrupt official and another who has a remarkable gift for picking horses.
IMHO it would be better if we left it there for a non-corrupt industrious generation to come along. But of course if that happens now the gas will be gone.
Muppet, it's not clear to me whether you're against the principle of doing a tax-on-profits deal with an energy company to extract natural resources or you disagree with the terms of this particular deal. Are you opposed to the Shell deal on ideological or pragmatic grounds?
I have no expertise to decide whether the terms of this deal were good or bad, or how they compare with similar deals between energy companies and sovereign states. Do you?
I have no ideology about it (or anything else, for that matter - ideology is the enemy of reason), but it seems reasonable to me for the state to transfer the exploration risk and profit uncertainty to a private company, provided the deal is good. Given the known history of incompetence, indifference and corruption in state enterprises, I would have zero confidence in the ability of any state organisation that was let at it to avoid making a complete wallix of it.
Quote from: Hardy on April 06, 2011, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 05, 2011, 07:13:00 PM
Hardy, let's try this.
I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.
You build, train etc and extract the gold.
If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.
Either way I lose all of my natural resources.
Meanwhile the two agents who orchestrated the deal on my behalf include one known corrupt official and another who has a remarkable gift for picking horses.
IMHO it would be better if we left it there for a non-corrupt industrious generation to come along. But of course if that happens now the gas will be gone.
Muppet, it's not clear to me whether you're against the principle of doing a tax-on-profits deal with an energy company to extract natural resources or you disagree with the terms of this particular deal. Are you opposed to the Shell deal on ideological or pragmatic grounds?
I have no expertise to decide whether the terms of this deal were good or bad, or how they compare with similar deals between energy companies and sovereign states. Do you?
I have no ideology about it (or anything else, for that matter - ideology is the enemy of reason), but it seems reasonable to me for the state to transfer the exploration risk and profit uncertainty to a private company, provided the deal is good. Given the known history of incompetence, indifference and corruption in state enterprises, I would have zero confidence in the ability of any state organisation that was let at it to avoid making a complete wallix of it.
Glad you asked me that. Shell were not involved at that stage so I am not blaming them for any part of the terms of the extraction. Shell bought out the exploration company who were involved.
My argument is simply pragmatic on this issue.
On the routing of the pipeline and refining on land I would be a lot closer to the original S2S position but I can't support that actions of some of their 'supporters' who to my mind have undermined the whole thing. Also the row has dragged on so long that they fight on every single issue now.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html)
Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system
Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'
A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.
Draconian? We should take the lot.
Quote from: Ulick on April 16, 2011, 10:26:29 PM
Draconian? We should take the lot.
I would take the lot, but an achievable result needs to be a bit more realistic. SF will need wider support to succeed and that is why it will need to be watered down a bit imho.
Still it is a good starting point.
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2011, 08:49:03 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html)
Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system
Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'
A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.
More socialist pap from SF. With this country in the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash it makes perfect sense for a foreign company to take all the risks of exploration and the costs that go with it. And now these clowns want us to run the risk of paying for it ;D
I suppose they will be raising the national pension reserve for exploration costs?
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 02, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2011, 08:53:37 PM
You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.
The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!
Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?
"Writing off overheads against tax" is a complete misnomer.
Shell will pay tax on its profits. To calculate the profits, its basically income less expenses.
25% of its profits will be paid in tax. There's no further offset for expenses incurred as they've already been taken into account when calculating the profits.
This is news to me!
Back in the early 70s, Justin Keating imposed terms on Marathon, the company developing the Kinsale field that were based on the Norwegian model. Here, a state-owned company, Statoil, was set up to make maximum use of the state's income from its oil reserves in the North Sea. (The exploration company was Mobil.)
Statoil was to a 50% partner and would bear none of the exploration costs but was to gain full access to mining data.
Norway wanted to become a world leader in deep-sea technology, exploration and production. It's fair to say that Britain settled for a much less favourable deal.
At least, Justin Keating said so.
Keating set up the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, (INPC) based on the Statoil model. This was some achievement given that the '73 oil crisis left the exploration companies with a much stronger hand to play with.
Shortly after this an election was held and Dessie O'Malley took over from Keating. He limited the INPC's remit to sourcing strategic oil supplies. It was no longer involved in drilling, exploration or the development of resources.
He also refused an invitation from Norway to take a block in their North Sea fields as the Norwegians would only deal with a state company and O'Malley was unwilling to use the INPC for this purpose.
His successor, Dick Spring, in 1985 did relax the conditions srt by Keating somewhat when he reduced state royalties and he abolished state participation in marginal fields altogether. This was in the face of pressure from the multinationals because they had drilled a total of 100 wells between 1975 and 1985 and failed to discover a single commercially viable one.
Ray Burke was next and in 1987 he announced in the Dail that he was abolishing royalty payments on all oil and gas production. Also, there would be a 100% tax write-off against capital expenditure on exploration, development and production going back 25 years.
Bertie Ahern relaxed conditions further in his Finance Act in 1991 when he reduced corporation tax to 25%. Furthermore, there was no longer any obligation on developers to drill at any early stage if a discovery was made and any find could be capped and held for optimum market conditions. The World Bank noted in 1995 that Ireland was one of the top seven countries in the world with 'very favourable' terms for exploration.
BTW, much of the above is based on the book by Lorna Siggins; "Once Upon a Time in the West.' The remainder is based on web pages I have been saving since the Corrib field was discovered- or at least announced.
If anything, conditions have been further relaxed since 1995.
Throw in the fact that plans to replace the turf-burning station at Bellacorrick with a modern gas-fired one and to hook Mayo towns up to the mains pipeline appear to have been shelved and you'll see why local interests see little benefit in for them in the latest developments.
Ballina and Crossmolina are connected and Ballyhaunis is dependent on Dawn meats signing an anchor agreement. Castlebar and Westport are included on Phase III of Bord Gais Networks New Towns project. As with any project a new town is only connected if there is an anchor load to connect, BGN have to pay for the pipe.
Sorry for bringing facts into this
Quote from: INDIANA on April 17, 2011, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2011, 08:49:03 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html)
Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system
Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'
A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.
More socialist pap from SF. With this country in the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash it makes perfect sense for a foreign company to take all the risks of exploration and the costs that go with it. And now these clowns want us to run the risk of paying for it ;D
I suppose they will be raising the national pension reserve for exploration costs?
Well you couldn't really say capitalism has been hitting highs recently. But because some one calls for a degree of state profits doesn't have to equate with socialism.
Anyway were the dangers of what's going on not referred to? Isn't the danger to people and disregard of them what the protests have been about?
Quote from: dowling on April 20, 2011, 12:27:57 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on April 17, 2011, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2011, 08:49:03 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html)
Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system
Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion
Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'
A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.
More socialist pap from SF. With this country in the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash it makes perfect sense for a foreign company to take all the risks of exploration and the costs that go with it. And now these clowns want us to run the risk of paying for it ;D
I suppose they will be raising the national pension reserve for exploration costs?
Well you couldn't really say capitalism has been hitting highs recently. But because some one calls for a degree of state profits doesn't have to equate with socialism.
Anyway were the dangers of what's going on not referred to? Isn't the danger to people and disregard of them what the protests have been about?
As I'm sure the Shinners here here will testify I am a long way from being a socialist, however the Corrib Gas license was a complete rip-off. No matter how you look at it giving away an asset for nothing is the worst possible return. That is not an attack on Shell as they weren't involved at the time.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 19, 2011, 11:58:17 PM
Ballina and Crossmolina are connected and Ballyhaunis is dependent on Dawn meats signing an anchor agreement. Castlebar and Westport are included on Phase III of Bord Gais Networks New Towns project. As with any project a new town is only connected if there is an anchor load to connect, BGN have to pay for the pipe.
Sorry for bringing facts into this
Arrah, don't be sorry at all; if board members here had to stay with facts all the time things would be very boring indeed.
Besides, while facts are, well, facts the interpretations to be taken from them are a different mater entirely.
There are another number of facts that I feel should be considered in the present context.
Firstly, I wrote:
Throw in the fact that plans ...............to hook Mayo towns up to the mains pipeline appear to have been shelved and
you'll see why local interests see little benefit in for them in the latest developments.The last bolded bit is my salient point.
Also, I did not state that
no Mayo towns will or would be linked to the mains or that plans to link up a number of (named) towns have been abandoned.
Now, according to Arup's website:*
Since September 2000 Arup has been working, on behalf of BGE, on the Mayo-Galway Pipeline. ........the construction of the pipeline from the Galway City offtake to the terminal at Bellanaboy Bridge in Co Mayo started in May 2005 and was completed on schedule in October 2006.
In other words, work on the construction of the MAYO/Galway line began almost 11 years ago and the relevant part was completed almost 5 years ago.
At present two towns are online, with another one being actively considered.
That is a very long way short of what was implied when Arup began work.
It is my clear recollection that a massive publicity was mounted to sell the benefits of what the pipeline would bring to the people of Mayo.
To be very fair to Enterprise, most of the promotion came from government sources.
It should be noted that Enterprise were very unhappy with the government's handling of the entire project and the former CEO, Brian O'Cathain, said after leaving office that in his opinion the government should have been sued for continued breaches of contract.
Now, more than a decade after they were led to believe they were going to get mains gas on tap, people along the route are still waiting with the strong probability that their towns are going to fail feasibility benchmarks.
I think it is quite reasonable to repeat
"local interests see little benefit in for them in the latest developments."BTW, in relation to the deal between Shell and the government, which was the subject of my original post, Shell's policy is to sell the gas at prevailing market prices and put it on the open market. It will be treated no differently to that coming from external sources. It will bring no benefit by way of reduced prices to the people of Mayo or the nation as a whole. That's my understanding anyway as I have heard of no recent changes to that policy.
*http://www.arup.ie/index.jsp?p=115&n=255
Lar I'll check out exactly what towns are being considered but I do know any Mayo town with an anchor load will get gas, BGN have to be able to show that a project is financially viable, after that for a pipe to be brought down a particular road in the town 20% of the residents on the road need to sign up
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/household-gas-bills-set-to-rocket-514583.html (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/household-gas-bills-set-to-rocket-514583.html)
Great to be able to have our own gas.
We should have taken this gas field back into State ownership, by whatever means required, a long time ago. What's the worst that could happen - get fcuked out of the EU and then we could tell them where to go with their loans? Win-win.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on April 21, 2011, 12:29:04 AM
Lar I'll check out exactly what towns are being considered but I do know any Mayo town with an anchor load will get gas, BGN have to be able to show that a project is financially viable, after that for a pipe to be brought down a particular road in the town 20% of the residents on the road need to sign up
Seem to remember them digging up half of Castlebar's streets and roads to put in pipes, then abandoned it leaving the town in a mess. Wasn't Ballina to be included too. Am I imagining this.
Surprised no one else has posted this - totally undermines the credibility of these women in my opinion.
QuoteOmbudsman says Mayo arrest tape was altered
The Garda Ombudsman Commission has found that parts of a recording of the arrest of two women, about whom Gardaí were alleged to have made sexually threatening remarks, were deleted and overwritten.
The women were arrested during an anti-Corrib gas pipleine protest in Co Mayo earlier this year.
The Shell to Sea group has said it does not accept that the recording was tampered with.
It has emerged that five Gardaí who were investigated after the release of the tape will not face criminal charges, but a disciplinary investigation involving two of them will continue.
The recording was made following the arrest of two women at a Shell to Sea demonstration on 31 March this year.
This afternoon the Garda Ombudsman Commission published its interim report into the incident.
The comments were recorded on a pocket camcorder seized from one of the women when they were arrested.
A garda put it in his pocket and it was unknowingly left in record mode - and this recorded a conversation between the gardaí in their vehicle.
The gardaí were heard joking about raping the women if they did not give their names and addresses. They also commented that one of the women - a US citizen - would be deported if she did not co-operate.
The report says a transcript of the recording 'supports these allegations.'
However, the investigation says it established that at no stage were the two women personally threatened about rape or deportation by the gardaí, because 'they did not hear the conversation at the time'.
The report says that it was suggested that another garda may have overheard one of the women using the word rape 'prior to the word being used by any garda member'.
A detective garda told the inquiry that one of the women shouted that the gardaí could rape them as they were being arrested.
The Ombudsman inquiry said it could not corroborate this statement from the recording because high winds distorted the sound.
Files deleted
The interim report also found that while footage of the original incident was recovered, parts of the recording were deleted and overwritten.
It said that a 'sequence of deletions from the device had taken place' before it was handed to gardaí.
Gardaí said they were unable to take possession of the device until 14 April and that it was sent to the Forensic Science Service in Northern ireland for analysis.
The FSNI said six files had been deleted from the device between 13 April and 14 April, with other files being created and overwritten during the same period.
'These files were not capable of being retrieved in a viewable format because of the damage caused to the files by the overwriting process.'
Shell to Sea says it does not accept that the recording was tampered with.
Spokesperson Caoimhe Kerins said other academic files were removed from the disc before it was handed to the Garda Ombudsman, but the entire file for that day was made available.
A statement by Shell to Sea said any suggestion by a detective garda that he heard a protestor use the word 'rape' is untrue and should be seen as a attempt to undermine the credibility of the women.
The statement added it was also untrue that the second woman had failed to co-operate with the investigation.
'She has in fact invested significant time and energy into preparing a detailed complaint. The deadline for submission of this complaint is September 2011,' it said.
All five gardaí in the car when the comments were made were interviewed by Garda Ombudsman.
The interim report says investigators established within two days that three of them 'took no active part in the contentious part of the conversation, did not engage with the inappropriate comments or make any inappropriate comments themselves.'
The Ombudsman has now decided that while the other two - a garda and a sergeant - remain the subject of a disciplinary inquiry, none of the five will face criminal charges.
The Ombudsman said the level of co-operation it received during its investigation was unsatisfactory - in particular from individuals associated through academic links with the two women.
The report states that one of the two women failed to co-operate with the investigation.
On Friday 8 April this year, the Garda Commissioner apologised for the comments.
Martin Callinan said he was sorry for the offence caused to the 'community we serve' and for the hurt and pain felt in particular by victims of sex crime.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0728/corrib.html
MGHU, Ballina does have gas, as does crossmolina
We are a Nation of complete mugs:
http://www.politico.ie/irish-politics/7931-my-oil-and-gas-film.html (http://www.politico.ie/irish-politics/7931-my-oil-and-gas-film.html)
Unfortunately an insipid counter argument is seeping into the media via the voices of the oil lobby and Pat Rabbitte. But it is not being properly deconstructed to show it up for the weak and sneaky diversion that it is. On the one hand Davy Stockbrokers is telling investors that the yield from Irish territory is potentially huge. On the other hand the oil lobby line seems to insinuate that there is nothing there and they are doing us all a tremendous favour in prospecting and extracting what is there in the face of massive risk. In order to back this up they – and our politicians - are clutching at a handful of twisted statistics.
The most glaringly fraudulent of these is the claim that Ireland's strike rate has been dismal since 1970. What they are not telling us is that almost no 3D seismic data existed for the Irish territory in the pre-mobile phone era, which is when the vast majority of these failed exploration wells they are referring to were drilled. From 1995 onwards there was a surge in the amount of highly accurate 3D data collected and an impressive increase in the strike rate followed. If we look at the period from 2000 to date then we see that out of 34 drills 10 are "development wells" a far greater ratio of success than the not 4 in 140 that they would have you believe. Furthermore we have voices from the offshore industry telling us that wells considered "non viable" in the 1980s could now be viable due to increased oil prices and the game changing drilling technology of the last fifteen years which can now reach as far down as 4,000 metres.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 17, 2011, 06:24:14 PM
Back in the early 70s, Justin Keating imposed terms on Marathon, the company developing the Kinsale field that were based on the Norwegian model. Here, a state-owned company, Statoil, was set up to make maximum use of the state's income from its oil reserves in the North Sea. (The exploration company was Mobil.)
Statoil was to a 50% partner and would bear none of the exploration costs but was to gain full access to mining data.
Norway wanted to become a world leader in deep-sea technology, exploration and production. It's fair to say that Britain settled for a much less favourable deal.
At least, Justin Keating said so.
Keating set up the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, (INPC) based on the Statoil model. This was some achievement given that the '73 oil crisis left the exploration companies with a much stronger hand to play with.
Shortly after this an election was held and Dessie O'Malley took over from Keating. He limited the INPC's remit to sourcing strategic oil supplies. It was no longer involved in drilling, exploration or the development of resources.
He also refused an invitation from Norway to take a block in their North Sea fields as the Norwegians would only deal with a state company and O'Malley was unwilling to use the INPC for this purpose.
this to me was the most important part of the siggins book, we should have gone in with the norwegians and learned how to take the full pound of flesh from the multinationals for our resources,
everything after that is just he said , she said and gutless politicians and angry people getting angrier
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on August 01, 2011, 10:38:23 PM
MGHU, Ballina does have gas, as does crossmolina
O right, well thats good, its roll out in Castlebar was a mess.
The great give away continues. Despite it being so difficult and unprofitable there was huge interest in our exploration licenses.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1017/breaking17.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1017/breaking17.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
We might as well just give it all to Anglo.
Where's the huge interest? None of the majors applied for these licences despite Shell & Exxon already having interest in the area. All because Corrib took 4 times longer than it should & cost 3 times as much.
From the Financial Times
Ireland awards offshore exploration licences
By Jamie Smyth in Dublin
Twelve companies have won licensing options to explore Irish coastal waters for oil and gas. But in a blow to the Irish government's drive to increase offshore exploration, none of the world's oil majors applied.
Repsol, the Spanish oil group, Ireland's Providence Resources and Chrysaor, a private group backed by Barclays Capital, were among the companies granted exploration options on the Porcupine, Slyne and Rockall basins off Ireland's Atlantic coast.
More
ON THIS STORY
Ophir Energy to acquire Dominion for £118m
IGas leads Aim-listed rush for onshore oil
Northern Petroleum sets up rig in deer land
Abu Dhabi takes share in Tanzanian field
Premier to buy North Sea explorer EnCore
In an effort to attract entrants, the government offered two-year licensing options rather than frontier licences, which typically require a substantial upfront investment by companies.
The competition attracted 15 applications from small- to midsized groups. This is significantly more than the two applications received in the last Irish exploration licensing round in 2009. However, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, oil majors with existing exploration interests in Atlantic waters off Ireland's west coast, did not submit applications.
Pat Rabbitte, Minister for Energy, told the Financial Times it was possible some major oil groups could join with licence winners at a later stage.
"Ireland needs to see an increase in exploration activity and exploration drilling in particular, if the petroleum potential of our offshore is to be realised," he said.
Mr Rabbitte said it was "a matter of some concern" that a small number of applications were received for the deeper water basins where significant petroleum potential had also been indicated. He said the government would consider regulatory changes to increase interest and would seek the views of the industry in coming months.
Research published by the Irish government on Monday estimates there are "potential, yet to find" reserves of 10bn barrels of oil equivalent off the Irish coast. But exploration interest remained very low with just 14 wells drilled since 2000.
The Irish Offshore Operators' Association said a low success rate for drilling to date, a harsh operating environment in the Atlantic and extreme delays in bringing the Corrib gas field into production were to blame.
The Corrib gas field, which was discovered in 1996, lies 83 kilometres off Ireland's west coast and is estimated to have one trillion cubic feet of gas. The project, which is being developed by Shell, Statoil and Vermilion Energy, has faced lengthy planning delays and sustained local protests. The field is expected to cost €2.5bn ($3.4bn) to develop – more than three times the original estimate of €800m.
John O'Sullivan, technical director with Providence Resources, said he felt a lot of companies would hold off investing in Ireland until Corrib was in production.
"We've definitely seen a Corrib ripple effect where we have seen potential JV partners come to us and being interested in doing business in Ireland. They go through the technical assessment, it gets to their main board and then someone who has worked at Shell or read about Corrib says they're not going to touch Ireland," he said.
Mr Rabbitte added the delays at Corrib had been damaging for Ireland.
"You can bring a well ashore in about four years in Norway. By the time we have eventually gone through all the hoops here, it will be 16 or 17 years. I can't pretend that has been a positive experience for Ireland," he said.
The 12 companies awarded licensing options are: Serica Energy, Providence Resources, Chrysaor E&P Ireland, Sosina Exploration, Bluestack Energy, Petrel Resources, Antrim Energy, Europa Oil & Gas, Two Seas Oil & Gas, Repsol Exploration, First Oil Expro and San Leon Energy.
Two applicants missed the deadline for the competition and were disqualified.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02ee470a-f8d3-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1bAKemVCb
The poor poor oil companies.
Tell me did Shell or Exxon or any of the major find the Corrib basin?
An independent exploration company found it. That company was bought by Shell once it had found the goods. Still, as Bertie Ahern said, fooling some of the people all of the time works.
Muppet you know as well as I do that there are differences between exploration in an area where oil/gas has been previously found and one where none has. There should be massive interest in these licences and there isn't due to Corrib.
You know as well as I do that it is a bear market, there is no credit and investors are hiding. Oil exploration would be bottom of the list for speculators. And yet it sold out. If this was the bond market Michael Noonan would be a hero.
We would be better off giving the gas/oil to Sean Quinn (and telling him no borrowing against it).
At least he would create loads of jobs on the back of it.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f4ebf86c-ff14-11e0-9769-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1buDxSH7H (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f4ebf86c-ff14-11e0-9769-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1buDxSH7H)
As a result, the government of Cyprus is already examining the multibillion-dollar sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Qatar for ideas on how to operate an investment fund of its own, if and when the cash comes rolling in. "There's a climate of euphoria in Cyprus," confesses Praxoula Antoniadou, the island state's industry minister.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4ebf86c-ff14-11e0-9769-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1buFaxfxd
Cyprus may choose to create a national energy champion, as Norway did when it established Statoil in 1972, he observed. "If so, the company should be run like a private company. It should have independent directors and should be quoted on a major stock exchange."
Mr Horn, who is deputy chief executive officer of the Renaissance Group, an investment company that specialises in emerging markets, said that if Cyprus set up a wealth fund, "everything you earn offshore should go into the fund and only a little bit should trickle out [for current expenditure]".
Where is our sovereign wealth fund?
We don't get a cent for the gas. We will eventually get a tax on profits. Big deal. Every business pays tax on profits. But not every business gets a free gas field.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0201/1224311046794.html
QuoteINITIAL INDICATIONS from exploration drilling in the northwest show that the area could hold enough natural gas to supply Irish needs for 12 years and create a total of 3,000 jobs.
Tamboran Resources, which has exploration drilling licences on both sides of the Border in the northwest region, said yesterday that its initial studies have confirmed the existence of a "substantial natural gas field" in northern Leitrim.
The company has already been the focus of a series of protests in the region because it is proposing to extract the gas using hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – a technique that has been blamed in the US for contaminating water supplies and other environmental problems.
Tamboran's findings suggest that production there could ultimately reach 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, worth $55 billion at yesterday's prices, which were around $2.50 per 1,000 cubic feet in New York.
The company said yesterday that the field could hold the equivalent of 12 years worth of Irish daily natural gas consumption.
Over 90 per cent of the natural gas consumed here every day is imported and the fuel is used to generate more than 60 per cent of electricity supplies.
Tamboran yesterday estimated that the Leitrim field would substantially cut these imports for up to 40 years and argued that it would help secure future energy supplies for the island of Ireland.
In a statement, chief executive, Richard Moorman, confirmed that Tamboran's initial analysis suggests the presence of very substantial shale gas reserves in the north Leitrim area.
"Allowing for even modest rates of recovery, the energy and economic benefits would be tremendous," he claimed.
The statement said that if the field were commercially developed, this would create 600 jobs directly and the knock-on effect would result in a further 2,400 new jobs.
It could also yield a substantial benefit for the State, which could get €4.9 billion in corporate, exploration and employment taxes.
Tamboran says it intends investing €7 billion in the region. Along with this, if the find hits its commercial targets, it has pledged to create a local investment fund that will channel €2 million a year into Leitrim.
Late last year, Mr Moorman told The Irish Times that the company had talks with Sligo Institute of Technology about the possibility of providing training for prospective workers.
Tamboran only holds exploration licences for the area. If it wants to go ahead and begin extracting the gas, it has to apply to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for further permits allowing it to do this.
In the meantime, Minister for Energy Pat Rabbitte has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to commission an independent study into the practice.
Fracking involves pumping large quantities of water at a rock face, deep underground, to create fissures or cracks through which natural gas can escape and be captured. It is used on rock types that are not porous enough to allow gas to be extracted by normal drilling techniques. The rocks are mainly shale, which is why the fuel extracted by fracking is known as "shale gas".
Tamboran plans to drill at 500m-1,500m under ground, using drill bits sealed in chambers constructed of steel pipe and cement designed to prevent contamination of soil or groundwater.
While chemicals are normally used in the process as lubricants, Mr Moorman has said Tamboran believes they would not be necessary in Leitrim.
Last month, the company issued a statement saying that it supports tough regulation and full-scale monitoring, embracing boreholes and drilling, seismic activity, and air and water quality.
Tamboran is one of three companies carrying out onshore natural gas exploration in Ireland.
Tamboran is a privately held Australian and Canadian-based exploration company with licences and assets in Ireland, Australia and Africa.
Contentious issue around these parts. Does anyone know of where Fracking occurs without environmental issues?
Below taken from http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking which is one side of the argument.
How does hydraulic fracturing work?
Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a means of natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.
What is horizontal hydraulic fracturing?
Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out, sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of.
How deep do natural gas wells go?
The average well is up to 8,000 feet deep. The depth of drinking water aquifers is about 1,000 feet. The problems typically stem from poor cement well casings that leak natural gas as well as fracking fluid into water wells.
Quote from: thejuice on February 01, 2012, 10:09:58 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0201/1224311046794.html
QuoteINITIAL INDICATIONS from exploration drilling in the northwest show that the area could hold enough natural gas to supply Irish needs for 12 years and create a total of 3,000 jobs.
Tamboran Resources, which has exploration drilling licences on both sides of the Border in the northwest region, said yesterday that its initial studies have confirmed the existence of a "substantial natural gas field" in northern Leitrim.
The company has already been the focus of a series of protests in the region because it is proposing to extract the gas using hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – a technique that has been blamed in the US for contaminating water supplies and other environmental problems.
Tamboran's findings suggest that production there could ultimately reach 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, worth $55 billion at yesterday's prices, which were around $2.50 per 1,000 cubic feet in New York.
The company said yesterday that the field could hold the equivalent of 12 years worth of Irish daily natural gas consumption.
Over 90 per cent of the natural gas consumed here every day is imported and the fuel is used to generate more than 60 per cent of electricity supplies.
Tamboran yesterday estimated that the Leitrim field would substantially cut these imports for up to 40 years and argued that it would help secure future energy supplies for the island of Ireland.
In a statement, chief executive, Richard Moorman, confirmed that Tamboran's initial analysis suggests the presence of very substantial shale gas reserves in the north Leitrim area.
"Allowing for even modest rates of recovery, the energy and economic benefits would be tremendous," he claimed.
The statement said that if the field were commercially developed, this would create 600 jobs directly and the knock-on effect would result in a further 2,400 new jobs.
It could also yield a substantial benefit for the State, which could get €4.9 billion in corporate, exploration and employment taxes.
Tamboran says it intends investing €7 billion in the region. Along with this, if the find hits its commercial targets, it has pledged to create a local investment fund that will channel €2 million a year into Leitrim.
Late last year, Mr Moorman told The Irish Times that the company had talks with Sligo Institute of Technology about the possibility of providing training for prospective workers.
Tamboran only holds exploration licences for the area. If it wants to go ahead and begin extracting the gas, it has to apply to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for further permits allowing it to do this.
In the meantime, Minister for Energy Pat Rabbitte has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to commission an independent study into the practice.
Fracking involves pumping large quantities of water at a rock face, deep underground, to create fissures or cracks through which natural gas can escape and be captured. It is used on rock types that are not porous enough to allow gas to be extracted by normal drilling techniques. The rocks are mainly shale, which is why the fuel extracted by fracking is known as "shale gas".
Tamboran plans to drill at 500m-1,500m under ground, using drill bits sealed in chambers constructed of steel pipe and cement designed to prevent contamination of soil or groundwater.
While chemicals are normally used in the process as lubricants, Mr Moorman has said Tamboran believes they would not be necessary in Leitrim.
Last month, the company issued a statement saying that it supports tough regulation and full-scale monitoring, embracing boreholes and drilling, seismic activity, and air and water quality.
Tamboran is one of three companies carrying out onshore natural gas exploration in Ireland.
Tamboran is a privately held Australian and Canadian-based exploration company with licences and assets in Ireland, Australia and Africa.
Quoteenough natural gas to supply Irish needs for 12 years and create a total of 3,000 jobs.
The amount of gas is irrelevant if we simply give it away for free again. We will shortly pay more for the wet stuff that falls out of the sky than the likes of Shell pay for our finite natural Gas.
When it rains in Spain these days, it truly pours misery. Argentina announced on Monday that it is planning to nationalise an oil company, YPF, in which a Spanish firm, Repsol, has a majority stake. Coming at a time when the government in Madrid has just rammed through the most severe budget since the death of General Franco, this must feel like an economic insult for Spain on top of already intolerable injury.
The Spanish government has promised an "overwhelming" response to the threat to Repsol's financial interests in Argentina and the country's Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, is in South America to gather support from friendly governments such as Mexico and Colombia.
The Spanish company's shares fell by as much as 9 per cent yesterday. European Commission President José Manuel Barroso weighed in, saying he expected Argentina to abide by agreements. "I am seriously disappointed about the announcement," he said.
Madrid summoned Argentina's ambassador, Carlos Bettini, as the dispute threatened to evolve into an all-out trade war. "With this hostility, there will be consequences... in the diplomatic field, in the industrial field and on energy," Spain's Industry Minister, José Manuel Soria, said.
But the bitter truth is that Spain is in no real position to win battles abroad. Preventing the roof from falling in at home over the coming months will be difficult enough. Spanish unemployment levels, which were painfully high even in the boom years of the last decade, are now comparable to those seen in America in the depths of the Great Depression. Some 23 per cent of Spaniards are out of work, and youth unemployment in Spain has reached an agonising 50 per cent.
And, most alarming of all, Spain's borrowing costs have jumped in recent weeks, raising the prospect of national bankruptcy. The yield – or interest rate – on 10-year Spanish debt rose above 6 per cent in trading this week as investors' doubts intensified about the ability of the Madrid government to avoid having to seek a bailout from its European Union partners and the International Monetary Fund.
There will be an important new test of market sentiment tomorrow when Madrid attempts to raise €2.5bn in a medium-term debt auction. If investors refuse to lend to the Spanish government, or will only do so at punitively high interest rates, the panic will increase.
The government wisely took the opportunity of the period of calm in capital markets earlier this year to issue half of the debt it needs to finance its spending this year. But Madrid still needs a further €40bn to see it through to the end of 2012. If medium-term Spanish interest rates rise about 7 per cent, analysts predict that Madrid will be unable to avoid following Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and collapsing into the arms of the fraying EU safety net.
So how did Spain get here? European policymakers, particularly German ones, claim that "excessive state spending" was the root of the eurozone debt crisis. But while that was true of Greece, it was not the case in Spain, where the government ran a budget surplus going into the 2008 global banking crisis. What has dragged Spain to the brink of collapse is a massive housing and construction bubble which exploded four years ago.
The country's banking system is its weakest point. Last month Spanish banks were forced to borrow €316bn euros from the European Central Bank (ECB) because they could not raise credit from other European banks. Analysts estimate Spanish institutions to be sitting on unrecognised losses to property companies of up to €100bn.
Worse, the fates of Spain's weak banks are now entwined with the fate of the government in Madrid. The ECB flooded the European banking system with liquidity in December and February. Spanish banks used the cheap ECB loans to buy up Spanish government bonds, driving down Madrid's borrowing costs. But now, with sovereign interest rates up and fears rising about the health of Spanish banks, that virtuous circle has turned vicious. The more investors panic about Spanish banks, the more they panic about the Spanish state, and vice versa.
Can Spain make it without seeking help from abroad? That depends on whether Spain can regain the confidence of investors and generate the growth it requires to soften the impact of the austerity blows in store. The government plans to reduce its budget deficit from 8.5 per cent of GDP in 2011 to 5.3 per cent by the end of the year. To achieve this, it has outlined spending cuts and tax rises, over one year, adding up to €27bn.
But markets are waking up to the fact that all this austerity could prove self-defeating, sucking demand out of the economy as public-sector workers are laid off, taxes go up and government investment programmes are shelved. According to the IMF, the Spanish economy will contract by 1.8 per cent this year. That will push record unemployment and general misery still higher. Desperate though the Spanish population might already feel, the country's economic trials are only just beginning.
- Ben Chu
It will be interesting to see how that goes alright.
If nothing happens we would be insane not to do the same, although I expect there will be serious recriminations. Our route to our gas would have to be more sophisticated than Argentina's.
By Telegraph Staff
10:51AM BST 19 Apr 2012
Comments52 Comments
Senator Anibal Fernandez, speaking to reporters after senate committees approved a bill to allow the government to nationalise 51pc of YPF, said the bill includes the expropriation of Repsol's local gas company.
He didn't name the company. but according to Repsol YPF's latest 20-F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Spanish company participates in the distribution of natural gas in Argentina through Gas Natural Ban and YPF subsidiary Metrogas.
Gas Natural Ban sells gas to about 1.4m customers in Buenos Aires, Argentina's most densely populated urban area.
The bill, which will be put to a vote before the full Senate next week before going to the Lower House, will give the government sweeping powers to regulate the oil and gas industry.
The action will add to anger in Madrid over the nationlisation of the South American country's leading oil company.
Related Articles
'We won't pay compensation'
On Wednesday, Argentina's deputy economy minister Axel Kicillof raised the stakes in the international row over the country's raid on YPF-Repsol by pledging politicians in Buenos Aires: "We're not going to pay what they say."
He made the provocative statement at the start of a parliamentary debate on the expropriation of the company that is 57pc owned by Spain's Repsol.
The Spanish company repeated demands for at least $10bn (£6.24bn) of compensation in exchange for the assets that Argentina plans to re-nationalise. Repsol said that YPF, which it bought from the Argentine government for $15bn in 1999, was worth a total of $18bn and it was seeking compensation on that basis.
Britain waded into the escalating diplomatic war that has rallied to Repsol's defence.
William Hague said he was "very concerned" about the move by Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and said the country was in breach of its G20 commitments.
"This is the latest in a series of trade and investment related actions taken by Argentina which are damaging to business interests and will undermine Argentina's economy by reducing its attractiveness to international investors," he said.
The Foreign Secretary added: "The Argentine Government has made no secret of the fact that it wishes to reduce imports and boost its domestic trade surplus through a variety of restrictive trade measures.
"This goes against all the commitments Argentina has made in the G20 to promote transparency and reduce protectionism. We will work with Spain and our EU partners to ensure the Argentine authorities uphold their international commitments and obligations."
Meanwhile, Madrid fired more warnings on behalf of Repsol. Spanish Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria promised "consequences" in the coming days. "They will be in the diplomatic field, the industrial field, and on energy," he said.
Mariano Rajoy, who is in Mexico trying to win support at the World Economic Forum, said Argentina's move was a "negative decision for everyone". The Spanish prime minister, who has little capacity for another financial crisis, added: "I must express my profound unease."
The Spanish cabinet is due to meet on Friday to agree a path of action against Argentina.
However, experts warned that Argentina was likely to remain unmoved under the international pressure. In her five years as president Ms Fernandez de Kirchner has raided state pension funds and increased import taxes without yielding to loud criticism from home and abroad.
Last year Argentina's bill for oil imports shot up 110pc to $9.4bn. In recent weeks, Ms Fernandez de Kirchner has said Repsol had not invested enough in YPF to extract Argentina's oil. The company denies the claim.
Argentina's move reportedly scuppered Repsol's plans to sell YPF to China's Sinopec for $15bn.
Quote from: muppet on April 18, 2012, 06:08:33 PM
It will be interesting to see how that goes alright.
If nothing happens we would be insane not to do the same, although I expect there will be serious recriminations. Our route to our gas would have to be more sophisticated than Argentina's.
Agree 100% . The Argentines must be enbracing the south american left wing policies!
Have been following the trucks that were carrying the large Boring machines for Shell this week.
One of the trucks weighed 172 tonnes, and the others were not far behind.
En route in Mayo, they were met with several protests, and while trying to make a turn on a bog road, two trucks went off the road and got stuck in the bog.
While the protesters didn't succeed in stopping them, the bog certainly did. They were stuck from Tuesday until today due to the fact that there were no cranes available to lift 172 tonnes, and protesters managed to delay equipment en route to help.
Anyhow, they finally got moving today.
This is a good video of the protest, and of the trucks that got stuck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXiduucx6w
Irish Times article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0803/breaking39.html
Feckers held me up with the dual carriageway being blocked so they could transport this gear. I spotted 7 squad cars in and around the junction that they held all up at. I expect Shell are footing the overtime bill.
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Feckers held me up with the dual carriageway being blocked so they could transport this gear. I spotted 7 squad cars in and around the junction that they held all up at. I expect Shell are footing the overtime bill.
There was some convoy allright Seanie here is a Video someone took of it going through Crossmolina .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLPSwP7RRM&feature=player_detailpage
Quote from: the Deel Rover on August 04, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Feckers held me up with the dual carriageway being blocked so they could transport this gear. I spotted 7 squad cars in and around the junction that they held all up at. I expect Shell are footing the overtime bill.
There was some convoy allright Seanie here is a Video someone took of it going through Crossmolina .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLPSwP7RRM&feature=player_detailpage
How could anyone think that the roads around Bellanaboy would be able to bear such heavy loads. One of them yokes was bad enough but a convoy of them was always going to end in disaster.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on August 04, 2012, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: the Deel Rover on August 04, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Feckers held me up with the dual carriageway being blocked so they could transport this gear. I spotted 7 squad cars in and around the junction that they held all up at. I expect Shell are footing the overtime bill.
There was some convoy allright Seanie here is a Video someone took of it going through Crossmolina .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLPSwP7RRM&feature=player_detailpage
How could anyone think that the roads around Bellanaboy would be able to bear such heavy loads. One of them yokes was bad enough but a convoy of them was always going to end in disaster.
That would seem to be typical of the thought and consideration given to this entire affair by the powers that be from what I can see. Something eerie or not right about this.
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 04, 2012, 11:10:00 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on August 04, 2012, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: the Deel Rover on August 04, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on August 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Feckers held me up with the dual carriageway being blocked so they could transport this gear. I spotted 7 squad cars in and around the junction that they held all up at. I expect Shell are footing the overtime bill.
There was some convoy allright Seanie here is a Video someone took of it going through Crossmolina .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLPSwP7RRM&feature=player_detailpage
How could anyone think that the roads around Bellanaboy would be able to bear such heavy loads. One of them yokes was bad enough but a convoy of them was always going to end in disaster.
That would seem to be typical of the thought and consideration given to this entire affair by the powers that be from what I can see. Something eerie or not right about this.
It's unreal what Shell are getting away with, and how little they will pay in revenue.
But hey, we got Sean Quinn to blame for the countries woes while all the while over 400 Billion in Oil and Gas reserves go to Shell.......
I just can't get over the protection the State affords them. I've never seen such Garda presence ever and certainly not in Sligo.
You have a point alright but the Quinn's do have to shoulder their portion of the blame. The fact that others don't and won't is not right, granted.
No matter which side of the argument you are on, it is hard not to conclude that we are incapable of running anything properly. There is no such thing as process or procedure.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1015/480557-corrib-gas-epa/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1015/480557-corrib-gas-epa/)
Revised licence for operation of Shell gas terminal at Ballinaboy quashed by Commercial Court.
QuoteNo matter which side of the argument you are on, it is hard not to conclude that we are incapable of running anything properly. There is no such thing as process or procedure.
Got that in one Elmo! We're a joke.
It just confirms that basically Shell have been given whatever they want by the State with no regard for what is right or wrong. The incompetence of a State body has been caught out here. Who will lose their job for this? What has the Minister to say?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
Quote from: muppet on November 01, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
That article proves what idiots we are as a nation. How willing we are to accept lies (look at all Europe did for us....soft landing.....). We'd swallow anything so long as everyone else is swallowing it too.
Quote from: muppet on November 01, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
A lot of mistruths in there along with the facts, but typical Irish alright to lap that nonsense up!
The article mentions the guarantee as the "most disastrous decision that was ever made by an Irish government" I certainly can't argue with that. But for some reason it doesnt mention that the two men who made the decision were Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan. Loads of politicians made errors, but those two have ensured the Irish taxpayer will bear the burden for generations.
Ray Burke is a crook as has been proven in the courts. But what he did re tax rates for oil companies was nothing but common sense, and has been continued by Ministers for Finance on all sides since then. The article says "Oil companies could scarcely find better terms than in Ireland", but doesnt ask why then so few of them are in Ireland??!!. It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesnt mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are not successful in their operations. Gas how some people swallow whatever a paper prints as gospel!
The article says "Irish rules allow companies to write off all costs for test drillings " as if this is some kind of special treatment. Norway, UK, etc, etc all do the very same!
I am looking forward to reading Eddie Hobbs "Own our oil" paper he is preparing. Personally I think successive FF/FG/Lab govt plans of trying to encourage oil companies to come here and drill for oil and gas, with the exchequer incurring no risk, no upfront cost and taking 25% to 40% of any profits is a decent plan. Then when infrastructure is built around successful operations, lots of jobs will come, we could turn Killybegs into Aberdeen or Stavanger (as I've said before). When the oil companies are coming here in their droves, then we can look at increasing taxes. But so far it clearly hasnt worked. Feck all oil and gas has come out of our shores. So I'm interested to see if Hobbs comes out something better or just the hyperbole nonsense around giving our resources away for free.
I do agree with the fisherman at the end. Our fishermen were completely rode by the terms of which we entered into the EU, while our farmers were paid to be unproductive! Probably down to our farmers having huge policital pull and our fishermen having none.
Quote from: Hound on November 04, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 01, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
A lot of mistruths in there along with the facts, but typical Irish alright to lap that nonsense up!
The article mentions the guarantee as the "most disastrous decision that was ever made by an Irish government" I certainly can't argue with that. But for some reason it doesnt mention that the two men who made the decision were Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan. Loads of politicians made errors, but those two have ensured the Irish taxpayer will bear the burden for generations.
Ray Burke is a crook as has been proven in the courts. But what he did re tax rates for oil companies was nothing but common sense, and has been continued by Ministers for Finance on all sides since then. The article says "Oil companies could scarcely find better terms than in Ireland", but doesnt ask why then so few of them are in Ireland??!!. It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesnt mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations. Gas how some people swallow whatever a paper prints as gospel!
The article says "Irish rules allow companies to write off all costs for test drillings " as if this is some kind of special treatment. Norway, UK, etc, etc all do the very same!
I am looking forward to reading Eddie Hobbs "Own our oil" paper he is preparing. Personally I think successive FF/FG/Lab govt plans of trying to encourage oil companies to come here and drill for oil and gas, with the exchequer incurring no risk, no upfront cost and taking 25% to 40% of any profits is a decent plan. Then when infrastructure is built around successful operations, lots of jobs will come, we could turn Killybegs into Aberdeen or Stavanger (as I've said before). When the oil companies are coming here in their droves, then we can look at increasing taxes. But so far it clearly hasnt worked. Feck all oil and gas has come out of our shores. So I'm interested to see if Hobbs comes out something better or just the hyperbole nonsense around giving our resources away for free.
I do agree with the fisherman at the end. Our fishermen were completely rode by the terms of which we entered into the EU, while our farmers were paid to be unproductive! Probably down to our farmers having huge policital pull and our fishermen having none.
"It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesn't mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations."
I would happily refund 70% of the costs IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. No problem with that at all, as long as we have the 70% tax rate and not the outrageous plundering that we have currently.
Quote from: muppet on November 04, 2013, 05:30:24 PM
Quote from: Hound on November 04, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 01, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
A lot of mistruths in there along with the facts, but typical Irish alright to lap that nonsense up!
The article mentions the guarantee as the "most disastrous decision that was ever made by an Irish government" I certainly can't argue with that. But for some reason it doesnt mention that the two men who made the decision were Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan. Loads of politicians made errors, but those two have ensured the Irish taxpayer will bear the burden for generations.
Ray Burke is a crook as has been proven in the courts. But what he did re tax rates for oil companies was nothing but common sense, and has been continued by Ministers for Finance on all sides since then. The article says "Oil companies could scarcely find better terms than in Ireland", but doesnt ask why then so few of them are in Ireland??!!. It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesnt mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations. Gas how some people swallow whatever a paper prints as gospel!
The article says "Irish rules allow companies to write off all costs for test drillings " as if this is some kind of special treatment. Norway, UK, etc, etc all do the very same!
I am looking forward to reading Eddie Hobbs "Own our oil" paper he is preparing. Personally I think successive FF/FG/Lab govt plans of trying to encourage oil companies to come here and drill for oil and gas, with the exchequer incurring no risk, no upfront cost and taking 25% to 40% of any profits is a decent plan. Then when infrastructure is built around successful operations, lots of jobs will come, we could turn Killybegs into Aberdeen or Stavanger (as I've said before). When the oil companies are coming here in their droves, then we can look at increasing taxes. But so far it clearly hasnt worked. Feck all oil and gas has come out of our shores. So I'm interested to see if Hobbs comes out something better or just the hyperbole nonsense around giving our resources away for free.
I do agree with the fisherman at the end. Our fishermen were completely rode by the terms of which we entered into the EU, while our farmers were paid to be unproductive! Probably down to our farmers having huge policital pull and our fishermen having none.
"It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesn't mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations."
I would happily refund 70% of the costs IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. No problem with that at all, as long as we have the 70% tax rate and not the outrageous plundering that we have currently.
I thought (and I'm sure Hound can set us straight) that the situation in Norway was that they refund 70% of costs incurred if you are
UNsuccessful, with the underlined letters missing from Hound's post
Quotedoesnt mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations.
This way would mean the Irish taxpayer would be at risk of a large tax bill. Also read somewhere (sorry I can't find the link), that the chances of a commercially viable strike are 1 in 32, with each well costing in excess of EUR50m, so on average we would be paying out 31 x 50m x 0.7 or about a billion, while reaping the rewards of 70% of the profits from well 32.
Quote from: muppet on November 04, 2013, 05:30:24 PM
Quote from: Hound on November 04, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 01, 2013, 07:23:36 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/conned-a-german-view-of-ireland-1.1454115?page=3)
I posted this on another thread before but it is well worth reading.
Ray Burke, Bertie Ahern, Providence and Shell all seen from a German perspective.
A lot of mistruths in there along with the facts, but typical Irish alright to lap that nonsense up!
The article mentions the guarantee as the "most disastrous decision that was ever made by an Irish government" I certainly can't argue with that. But for some reason it doesnt mention that the two men who made the decision were Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan. Loads of politicians made errors, but those two have ensured the Irish taxpayer will bear the burden for generations.
Ray Burke is a crook as has been proven in the courts. But what he did re tax rates for oil companies was nothing but common sense, and has been continued by Ministers for Finance on all sides since then. The article says "Oil companies could scarcely find better terms than in Ireland", but doesnt ask why then so few of them are in Ireland??!!. It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesnt mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations. Gas how some people swallow whatever a paper prints as gospel!
The article says "Irish rules allow companies to write off all costs for test drillings " as if this is some kind of special treatment. Norway, UK, etc, etc all do the very same!
I am looking forward to reading Eddie Hobbs "Own our oil" paper he is preparing. Personally I think successive FF/FG/Lab govt plans of trying to encourage oil companies to come here and drill for oil and gas, with the exchequer incurring no risk, no upfront cost and taking 25% to 40% of any profits is a decent plan. Then when infrastructure is built around successful operations, lots of jobs will come, we could turn Killybegs into Aberdeen or Stavanger (as I've said before). When the oil companies are coming here in their droves, then we can look at increasing taxes. But so far it clearly hasnt worked. Feck all oil and gas has come out of our shores. So I'm interested to see if Hobbs comes out something better or just the hyperbole nonsense around giving our resources away for free.
I do agree with the fisherman at the end. Our fishermen were completely rode by the terms of which we entered into the EU, while our farmers were paid to be unproductive! Probably down to our farmers having huge policital pull and our fishermen having none.
"It mentions the good oul 70% tax rate in Norway - but again (funnily enough) doesn't mention the fact that Norway refund 70% of the costs incurred to oil companies if they are successful in their operations."
I would happily refund 70% of the costs IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. No problem with that at all, as long as we have the 70% tax rate and not the outrageous plundering that we have currently.
Typo of course.
Norway refunds them 70% of their money if they are NOT successful.
The above ideology assumes that there is a pressing need to get the fuel out of the ground, hence giving it away to speculators for nothing is seen as preferable to any other option.
I'm no export on oil and gas exploration and much less on the economics of resource recovery, but the government's policy and strategy in this sector of the economy, in contrast with most other sectors, seems just about spot on to me. I simply don't understand how people can argue that we're giving away our resources and not explain why practically nobody's here availing of such generosity.
Our resources appear to be marginal at best. That's why the oil companies aren't interested even in our supposedly generous incentive regime. So policy needs to make it more, not less attractive for them to take the risk. If, after they've enjoyed a few years of generous tax write-offs, they've established that we actually do have viable resource deposits, then I'm all for taxing their profits at 70% or more if we can get it and still keep the oil flowing. But 70% of nothing is zero.
That's unless we want to undertake the cost of setting up a state-owned oil company, without any native expertise and send them out to look for the stuff. Does anyone seriously think a CIE or a FÁS of oil wouldn't make a complete bollix of it while, in the process, costing us exponential multiples of what the tax breaks for oil companies cost?
Quote from: Hardy on November 05, 2013, 12:31:49 PM
I'm no export on oil and gas exploration and much less on the economics of resource recovery, but the government's policy and strategy in this sector of the economy, in contrast with most other sectors, seems just about spot on to me. I simply don't understand how people can argue that we're giving away our resources and not explain why practically nobody's here availing of such generosity.
Our resources appear to be marginal at best. That's why the oil companies aren't interested even in our supposedly generous incentive regime. So policy needs to make it more, not less attractive for them to take the risk. If, after they've enjoyed a few years of generous tax write-offs, they've established that we actually do have viable resource deposits, then I'm all for taxing their profits at 70% or more if we can get it and still keep the oil flowing. But 70% of nothing is zero.
That's unless we want to undertake the cost of setting up a state-owned oil company, without any native expertise and send them out to look for the stuff. Does anyone seriously think a CIE or a FÁS of oil wouldn't make a complete bollix of it while, in the process, costing us exponential multiples of what the tax breaks for oil companies cost?
That tax has never happened despite decades of Kinsale gas and there is no sign of it coming for the Corrib gas either.
I agree our resources are marginal, at todays oil market and with today's technology.
Giving the stuff away for nothing still makes no sense, in any market. Your notion of raising taxes later would be fine if it were realistic. But it will never happen. Extraction of these fuels on the current terms does absolutely nothing for the Irish State or its taxpayers other than to deplete the resources. How is that a good idea?
And as for doing it ourselves, CIE and Fás are not the only examples of state organisations. Successive Governments allowed those particular companies to be run by trade unions. Bertie Ahern even made a trade union leader Chairman of Fás. But the reality is whenever, sometime in the future, market conditions make it realistic for us to do it, the oil companies will be chomping at the bit to get in.
Shell's profits for feb 2012 were $30.9bn, they don't need a hand from our taxpayer.
The more I think of it, this is a great euphemism for what happened our banks. We, the taxpayer, are bled to help out the beleaguered banks, or in this case the oil industry. When the banks make a profit they keep it, when they need a bailout, we pay for it. Heads they win, tails we lose.
We can get this one right for another generation. Leave it in the ground.
Muppet, no time. Very briefly -
"No tax from Kinsale and Corrib" - is there cheating going on or is it that they haven't yet reached the threshold? The current tax regime is clearly NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH to incentivise significant exploration. Making a few short term bob out of Shell and Kinsale would be a false economy if it delayed or even completely blocked the prospect of proper exploration of our fields - which may prove unviable anyway. It's popular Sinn Féinery to create headlines about fat cats paying little or no tax, but it's no more than populist nonsense.
"Will it ever happen" (getting a proper tax rate)? Why shouldn't it happen? I know it's popular (and populist again) to engage in taxi-driver analysis and assume that "that crowd" would sell our birthright for a few brown envelopes. Again it's nonsense. We can easily make sure they don't get the chance, whether we're cynical enough to think they'd try or naive enough to think they wouldn't.
"Form our own oil company" - and take all the risks onto the exchequer? Not only unrealistic but lunatic.
"Shell don't need a handout" - It's not that Shell are here because they need a handout. It's that they wouldn't be here if they didn't get the handout - or reasonable tax incentives, to be less pejorative. To view it the other way is more taxi driver analysis and Sinn Féinery, with respect. It ignores economics in favour of emotion. To cut the incentive to Shell and jeopardise the future prospects of commercialising our resources, just to be able to say "at least we didn't give handouts to international corporations" would be childishly reckless.
"Banks vs. oil industry" - no equivalence. Again you talk about "helping out" the oil industry. Sorry, but let me out of the taxi. (Take the smiley and the respect as read.)
Once again, for emphasis, my two main points:
1. Our oil and gas resources may amount to nothing and not be worth extracting. Taking a multi-billion risk to find that out is unacceptable by any possible economic analysis, when we can let others take the risk at an exponentially reduced cost and cash in if and when there's actually something to tax.
2. If this is such a bonanza for the international oil and gas companies, where are they?
Quote from: Hardy on November 05, 2013, 02:43:19 PM
Muppet, no time. Very briefly -
"No tax from Kinsale and Corrib" - is there cheating going on or is it that they haven't yet reached the threshold? The current tax regime is clearly NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH to incentivise significant exploration. Making a few short term bob out of Shell and Kinsale would be a false economy if it delayed or even completely blocked the prospect of proper exploration of our fields - which may prove unviable anyway. It's popular Sinn Féinery to create headlines about fat cats paying little or no tax, but it's no more than populist nonsense.
"Will it ever happen" (getting a proper tax rate)? Why shouldn't it happen? I know it's popular (and populist again) to engage in taxi-driver analysis and assume that "that crowd" would sell our birthright for a few brown envelopes. Again it's nonsense. We can easily make sure they don't get the chance, whether we're cynical enough to think they'd try or naive enough to think they wouldn't.
"Form our own oil company" - and take all the risks onto the exchequer? Not only unrealistic but lunatic.
"Shell don't need a handout" - It's not that Shell are here because they need a handout. It's that they wouldn't be here if they didn't get the handout - or reasonable tax incentives, to be less pejorative. To view it the other way is more taxi driver analysis and Sinn Féinery, with respect. It ignores economics in favour of emotion. To cut the incentive to Shell and jeopardise the future prospects of commercialising our resources, just to be able to say "at least we didn't give handouts to international corporations" would be childishly reckless.
"Banks vs. oil industry" - no equivalence. Again you talk about "helping out" the oil industry. Sorry, but let me out of the taxi. (Take the smiley and the respect as read.)
Once again, for emphasis, my two main points:
1. Our oil and gas resources may amount to nothing and not be worth extracting. Taking a multi-billion risk to find that out is unacceptable by any possible economic analysis, when we can let others take the risk at an exponentially reduced cost and cash in if and when there's actually something to tax.
2. If this is such a bonanza for the international oil and gas companies, where are they?
I never said 'no tax from Kinsale or Corrib'. I highlighted your 70% tax rate and said it will never happen. We won't even tax bailed out banks profits at that rate and it is frankly naive to say it will happen. Dismissing my opinion as Sinn Féinery ignores my years of posting here. I am anything but a Sinn Féin fan.
Regardless you seem to assume that if we have oil or gas, we have to get it out of the ground now. Why would we do that if it means we give it away for nothing? Why would anyone genuinely acting in the interests of the taxpayer, give it away for nothing?
Now to your 2 points:
1. There will be no cashing in for us, ever. We will always take the risk as the banks demonstrated so clearly.
2. Who said there was a bonanza? Oh and it seems there is at least some interest: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793)
Quote from: muppet on November 05, 2013, 05:21:52 PM
I never said 'no tax from Kinsale or Corrib'. I highlighted your 70% tax rate and said it will never happen. We won't even tax bailed out banks profits at that rate and it is frankly naive to say it will happen. Dismissing my opinion as Sinn Féinery ignores my years of posting here. I am anything but a Sinn Féin fan.
Regardless you seem to assume that if we have oil or gas, we have to get it out of the ground now. Why would we do that if it means we give it away for nothing? Why would anyone genuinely acting in the interests of the taxpayer, give it away for nothing?
Now to your 2 points:
1. There will be no cashing in for us, ever. We will always take the risk as the banks demonstrated so clearly.
2. Who said there was a bonanza? Oh and it seems there is at least some interest: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793)
I wonder do Shell think they're getting the resources for free when €3 billion has been spent so far on Corrib without a cent in revenue?
Providence have spent €600m so far. Hopeful of getting a big find in Barryroe, but we'll see.
Dunquin was supposed to be a big find, but Exxon pulled out after its exploration activity found nothing of value there and they said they don't expect to come back to Ireland. They didn't say how much they spent but the average cost for drilling an exploration well in Irish waters is €60M. In Norway the average cost is €40M, and if you find nothing the Norwegians give you back €31M (Norway's oil tax rate is actually 78%). Ireland of course will give Exxon nothing back for the money they spent.
So the carrot of 25% tax on profits in Ireland versus 78% tax on profits in Norway has to be set against risking €60M in Ireland for every well drilled (with an historic success rate of 1/32) compared to €9M at risk in Norway if unsuccessful (with an historic success rate of 1/7). Norway, like Ireland and the UK, do not charge a royalty on oil/gas found (or we all "give it away for free" to use muppet's analogy), but all three apply tax on profits after taking into account all expenses incurred.
Quote from: muppet on November 05, 2013, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 05, 2013, 02:43:19 PM
Muppet, no time. Very briefly -
"No tax from Kinsale and Corrib" - is there cheating going on or is it that they haven't yet reached the threshold? The current tax regime is clearly NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH to incentivise significant exploration. Making a few short term bob out of Shell and Kinsale would be a false economy if it delayed or even completely blocked the prospect of proper exploration of our fields - which may prove unviable anyway. It's popular Sinn Féinery to create headlines about fat cats paying little or no tax, but it's no more than populist nonsense.
"Will it ever happen" (getting a proper tax rate)? Why shouldn't it happen? I know it's popular (and populist again) to engage in taxi-driver analysis and assume that "that crowd" would sell our birthright for a few brown envelopes. Again it's nonsense. We can easily make sure they don't get the chance, whether we're cynical enough to think they'd try or naive enough to think they wouldn't.
"Form our own oil company" - and take all the risks onto the exchequer? Not only unrealistic but lunatic.
"Shell don't need a handout" - It's not that Shell are here because they need a handout. It's that they wouldn't be here if they didn't get the handout - or reasonable tax incentives, to be less pejorative. To view it the other way is more taxi driver analysis and Sinn Féinery, with respect. It ignores economics in favour of emotion. To cut the incentive to Shell and jeopardise the future prospects of commercialising our resources, just to be able to say "at least we didn't give handouts to international corporations" would be childishly reckless.
"Banks vs. oil industry" - no equivalence. Again you talk about "helping out" the oil industry. Sorry, but let me out of the taxi. (Take the smiley and the respect as read.)
Once again, for emphasis, my two main points:
1. Our oil and gas resources may amount to nothing and not be worth extracting. Taking a multi-billion risk to find that out is unacceptable by any possible economic analysis, when we can let others take the risk at an exponentially reduced cost and cash in if and when there's actually something to tax.
2. If this is such a bonanza for the international oil and gas companies, where are they?
I never said 'no tax from Kinsale or Corrib'. I highlighted your 70% tax rate and said it will never happen. We won't even tax bailed out banks profits at that rate and it is frankly naive to say it will happen. Dismissing my opinion as Sinn Féinery ignores my years of posting here. I am anything but a Sinn Féin fan.
Regardless you seem to assume that if we have oil or gas, we have to get it out of the ground now. Why would we do that if it means we give it away for nothing? Why would anyone genuinely acting in the interests of the taxpayer, give it away for nothing?
Now to your 2 points:
1. There will be no cashing in for us, ever. We will always take the risk as the banks demonstrated so clearly.
2. Who said there was a bonanza? Oh and it seems there is at least some interest: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793)
Muppet, I misunderstood your Kinsale point.
I know you're anything but a Sinn Féiner - I was merely suggesting an analogy between the arguments and language you're using in this debate and the sort of populist, economically illiterate nonsense we hear from SF (which surprises me, coming from you).
I don't quite get your point about the timing of when we should extract the resources. What would be different in the future? If we we haven't been doing any exploration in the meantime, we still
- don't know whether there's anything there or not
- have to make the decision as to whether we fund it by tax incentives to exploration companies or by setting up a state oil company
- have to decide whether we farm out the risk or take it all upon ourselves.
There is no equivalence between the bank bailout and oil exploration policy. I don't see the point in inventing one. You might as well say our agricultural development policy simply can't work because the government hasn't a clue how to run the health service. If the point is that a history of incompetence and corruption predisposes us to either screwing up or sabotaging the chances of the people benefitting from the oil, then you'd have to explain how forming a national oil company protects us from the same outcome, given that it would be conceived, established and run by the same corrupt, incompetent establishment, who would now be exercising their incompetence and corruption directly.
You didn't say there was a "bonanza", but you keep on referring to "giving away" our oil and gas "for nothing". I suggest that would amount to a bonanza for any lucky beneficiary, so I have to wonder why the oil companies aren't jostling each other for room to fit their platforms in our teeming free oilfields. I'm encouraged we now have ten doing some exploration. (How many are exploring off Norway?) If they find substantial deposits, leading to the proof that we really do have commercially viable quantities of resources, I expect the cost for the next round of exploration licences and the tax on profits to increase very substantially.
Quote from: Hound on November 06, 2013, 08:42:58 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 05, 2013, 05:21:52 PM
I never said 'no tax from Kinsale or Corrib'. I highlighted your 70% tax rate and said it will never happen. We won't even tax bailed out banks profits at that rate and it is frankly naive to say it will happen. Dismissing my opinion as Sinn Féinery ignores my years of posting here. I am anything but a Sinn Féin fan.
Regardless you seem to assume that if we have oil or gas, we have to get it out of the ground now. Why would we do that if it means we give it away for nothing? Why would anyone genuinely acting in the interests of the taxpayer, give it away for nothing?
Now to your 2 points:
1. There will be no cashing in for us, ever. We will always take the risk as the banks demonstrated so clearly.
2. Who said there was a bonanza? Oh and it seems there is at least some interest: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/oil-and-gas-drilling-off-west-to-intensify-as-about-10-firms-interested-1.1477793)
I wonder do Shell think they're getting the resources for free when €3 billion has been spent so far on Corrib without a cent in revenue?
Providence have spent €600m so far. Hopeful of getting a big find in Barryroe, but we'll see.
Dunquin was supposed to be a big find, but Exxon pulled out after its exploration activity found nothing of value there and they said they don't expect to come back to Ireland. They didn't say how much they spent but the average cost for drilling an exploration well in Irish waters is €60M. In Norway the average cost is €40M, and if you find nothing the Norwegians give you back €31M (Norway's oil tax rate is actually 78%). Ireland of course will give Exxon nothing back for the money they spent.
So the carrot of 25% tax on profits in Ireland versus 78% tax on profits in Norway has to be set against risking €60M in Ireland for every well drilled (with an historic success rate of 1/32) compared to €9M at risk in Norway if unsuccessful (with an historic success rate of 1/7). Norway, like Ireland and the UK, do not charge a royalty on oil/gas found (or we all "give it away for free" to use muppet's analogy), but all three apply tax on profits after taking into account all expenses incurred.
As long as there is more than €3bn worth of gas there, Shell will get it all back. This kinda makes my point for me. They aren't doing it for the fun.
There are two key arguments here:
1) How do we deal with failed exploration.
2) How do we deal with successful exploration.
Hound and Hardy, correct me if I am wrong, seem to be suggesting that in order to attract 1), we need to be very generous on 2).
Hound points out, reasonably that Norway refunds 70% of the costs of 1). But he does this in defending our very attractive terms for 2). I am sure Norway has a far greater hands on approach to exploration, otherwise it could find itself with a massive bill on its hands. We on the other hand give out licenses to anyone who wants to look. We don't care where they look. Presumably this is because we are at an earlier stage of our industry. Norway has proven viable finds and thus the odds are better there at the moment.
In conclusion regarding Norway, they incentivise the exploration by underwriting some of the risk, but if you succeed they will tax you at 78%.
We incentivise the risk by giving away the oil or gas from the successful find.
This makes absolutely no sense as there is no benefit to the current owner of the resources, i.e. us the taxpayer.
Hardy, waiting does make a difference. Waiting until now has made oil reach a price that makes deepwater exploration more economical. That is why we are even discussing the subject. 20 years ago no one wanted to spend the money to go way off our west coast. Further improvements in technology and higher energy prices could allow us to offer better terms.
And back to the bank analogy. The fiasco that has been the Corrib field will
all be underwritten by the Irish taxpayer, just like what happened the banks. It doesn't matter if the bill for Shell goes up to €10bn, as long as there is enough gas to cover it, they won't pay a cent. Our gas pays for it as we gave it to them for nothing, or according to the lingo: zero royalties.
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits. The profit comes from the gas, not from fishing or running boat trips out to the rig. This rate of Corporation Tax is unique to exploitation of natural resources. Everyone else pays 12.5%, as you know.
If we were charging 70% tax, do you think Shell would have explored the Corrib field, given the fact that only one other viable gas field has ever been discovered in Irish waters? Your (2) doesn't happen without your (1) and your (1) won't happen in Irish waters without an attractive incentive, as is clear from the low level of exploration, even given the current incentives that you characterise as giving the stuff away.
Double the standard Corporation Tax has proven to be a sufficient incentive in the case of the Corrib field and Shell. I don't see the couple of billion it may deliver as a bad outcome for us, given the alternative if it wasn't exploited (i.e. nothing) or the downside risk if we'd explored it ourselves and found nothing, as has happened in all cases but one, (i.e. a huge bill and no revenue).
That is not to say that a 50% tax rate won't be appropriate if our resources prove to be viable; or that an 80% rate won't be appropriate if they prove to be massive. The trick is to get as much as we think we can and still make it worthwhile for the oil companies. So far, in my estimation, we seem to be getting it right, though some might say we need to make the deal more attractive as there's not a whole lot going on.
On the other hand, you may be right and oil may be $1,000 a barrel in 2050 and we should leave it there until then. We will never know; our grandchildren might.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
And back to the bank analogy. The fiasco that has been the Corrib field will all be underwritten by the Irish taxpayer, just like what happened the banks. It doesn't matter if the bill for Shell goes up to €10bn, as long as there is enough gas to cover it, they won't pay a cent. Our gas pays for it as we gave it to them for nothing, or according to the lingo: zero royalties.
Your saying that if Shell get €3bn worth of gas out of Corrib, then their net profit will be zero, thus their tax bill will be zero, and the Irish taxpayer will have given away €3bn worth of gas for free.
But that logic is seriously flawed.
If it costs €3 billion to get €3 billion of gas out of the ground, then that gas is worth exactly nothing.
Shell would have made no money
The Irish taxpayer would have made no money
The Irish taxpayer would have given no subsidy
(Hopefully there would be economic benefits for the west coast in terms of job and infrastructrue during the period, but we can leave that aside).
If only €2 billion of gas comes, then Shell have lost a thousand million euro. The Irish taxpayer has lost nothing. It would have turned out that supposed gas asset was actually a liability.
If €7 billion of gas comes, then Shell have made a profit of €4 billion, and the Irish exchequer benefits to the tune of €1 billion. The Irish exchequer gets 25% of the net value of the gas (price less costs of getting it out of the ground).
Quote from: Hound on November 06, 2013, 03:36:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 01:39:41 PM
And back to the bank analogy. The fiasco that has been the Corrib field will all be underwritten by the Irish taxpayer, just like what happened the banks. It doesn't matter if the bill for Shell goes up to €10bn, as long as there is enough gas to cover it, they won't pay a cent. Our gas pays for it as we gave it to them for nothing, or according to the lingo: zero royalties.
Your saying that if Shell get €3bn worth of gas out of Corrib, then their net profit will be zero, thus their tax bill will be zero, and the Irish taxpayer will have given away €3bn worth of gas for free.
But that logic is seriously flawed.
If it costs €3 billion to get €3 billion of gas out of the ground, then that gas is worth exactly nothing.
Shell would have made no money
The Irish taxpayer would have made no money
The Irish taxpayer would have given no subsidy
(Hopefully there would be economic benefits for the west coast in terms of job and infrastructrue during the period, but we can leave that aside).
If only €2 billion of gas comes, then Shell have lost a thousand million euro. The Irish taxpayer has lost nothing. It would have turned out that supposed gas asset was actually a liability.
If €7 billion of gas comes, then Shell have made a profit of €4 billion, and the Irish exchequer benefits to the tune of €1 billion. The Irish exchequer gets 25% of the net value of the gas (price less costs of getting it out of the ground).
The difference between us is very simple.
Both of you refuse to see that they pay nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas. They get the raw material free. FREE!
Why do you both ignore this?
Can I be first in line to buy anything either of you have to sell?
Norway used to have lower taxes, but they charged
royalties on the raw material before they switched to the current set up.
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
does it cost you several billion to find out if you have a job to got to?
oil exploration is a gamble and many biliion has been lost in empty/no commercial wells off Ireland
Muppet, why are you ignoring the tax on their profits?
This idea that we are giving away gas is ridiculous and is the in keeping with the anti-corrib propaganda that is spouted by various groups.
As I see it there are two alternatives to the current regime
1) Leave it in the ground, possibly a viable alternative, although it does ignore the fact that oil has only been around for 150 years in the format and could be overtaken by some other form of energy in the next 50 years, which isnt exactly pie in the sky. If oil gets much dearer then more money is pumped into research, technology develops etc. A bird in the hand and all that.
2) We have some form of profit sharing JV. As hound has said there is an historical rate of 1/32 hits per drill, versus 1/7 in Norway. Even if we hit the average, its a ridiculous risk which no prudent state could possibly take.
If there are more options I'd be glad to hear them.
As for the extra cost for Corrib, that is being caused by people listening to the propaganda about the gas been sold for nothing and the dangers of the pipeline. The extra cost is hitting both Shell and Ireland
Quote from: rosnarun on November 06, 2013, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
does it cost you several billion to find out if you have a job to got to?
oil exploration is a gamble and many biliion has been lost in empty/no commercial wells off Ireland
Firstly my family has to educate me feed me etc until I become productive. It costs a lot of money to get me productive and we can't claim it back in any way. In fact we pay more than twice what Shell do on the 'profits', and we don't get to use taxpayers' gas to pay for the all of the costs.
I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on November 06, 2013, 04:16:56 PM
Muppet, why are you ignoring the tax on their profits?
This idea that we are giving away gas is ridiculous and is the in keeping with the anti-corrib propaganda that is spouted by various groups.
As I see it there are two alternatives to the current regime
1) Leave it in the ground, possibly a viable alternative, although it does ignore the fact that oil has only been around for 150 years in the format and could be overtaken by some other form of energy in the next 50 years, which isnt exactly pie in the sky. If oil gets much dearer then more money is pumped into research, technology develops etc. A bird in the hand and all that.
2) We have some form of profit sharing JV. As hound has said there is an historical rate of 1/32 hits per drill, versus 1/7 in Norway. Even if we hit the average, its a ridiculous risk which no prudent state could possibly take.
If there are more options I'd be glad to hear them.
As for the extra cost for Corrib, that is being caused by people listening to the propaganda about the gas been sold for nothing and the dangers of the pipeline. The extra cost is hitting both Shell and Ireland
This is utter bollix. The extra cost is caused by the complete mishandling of the whole thing by the state. Shell behaved poorly when they arrived, armed (they thought) with ludicrous weapons handed over by Fianna Fáil, such as the unconstitutional Compulsory Purchases Orders. This resulted in the 5 men going to jail until a very embarrassing climb down by Shell (but not the State notably - no shame there). The planning fiascos have continued to dog the project but of course it is easy to blame the handful of lunatics surrounded by 300 Gárdaí.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to
all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
As for the extra cost for Corrib, that is being caused by people listening to the propaganda about the gas been sold for nothing and the dangers of the pipeline. The extra cost is hitting both Shell and Ireland
This is utter bollix. The extra cost is caused by the complete mishandling of the whole thing by the state. Shell behaved poorly when they arrived, armed (they thought) with ludicrous weapons handed over by Fianna Fáil, such as the unconstitutional Compulsory Purchases Orders. This resulted in the 5 men going to jail until a very embarrassing climb down by Shell (but not the State notably - no shame there). The planning fiascos have continued to dog the project but of course it is easy to blame the handful of lunatics surrounded by 300 Gárdaí.
Ah Muppet, lets stick to the facts here.
There is no basis to say the CPOs are unconstitutional
Shell climbing down is your view, my view, is that they agreed to reroute the pipe in order to move things along, a move which has been a outright mistake as the original route was the optimal route.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on November 06, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market
I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.
Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.
Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.
Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:45:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on November 06, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market
I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.
Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.
Hah, in the next 20 years, now u really are taking the piss. We've more of a chance of cold fusion or http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html (http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html)
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.
Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.
Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.
(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them
I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.
(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.
Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.
All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on November 06, 2013, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:45:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on November 06, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market
I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.
Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.
Hah, in the next 20 years, now u really are taking the piss. We've more of a chance of cold fusion or http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html (http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html)
Sadly I probably agree with you on that, but it doesn't mean I can't hope.
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.
Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.
Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.
(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them
I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.
(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.
Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.
All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?
There you go again. I'm out.
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 06, 2013, 03:52:18 PM
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.
Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.
Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".
I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.
QuoteI find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.
Ah come on. You're better than that.
Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.
Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?
It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.
I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.
Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.
Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.
(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them
I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.
(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.
Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.
Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.
All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?
There you go again. I'm out.
" We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.
All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z."
You have argued this throughout from the point of view of ensuring Shell's comfort: 'before they'll feck off somewhere else.'
Am I misreading this?
As I pointed out, they are not the big risk takers. That happened before Shell got involved.
Muppet, stop trivialising the discussion by making up arguments to win and characterising them as mine. You don't genuinely think I'm concerned about Shell's comfort. You certainly can't think it after I've explained the substantive point for the fifth time. So please stop stating it.
But, on the off chance you've missed the point, replace Shell (and everyone else by the same argument) "fecking off somewhere else" with our not getting the gas revenues (because, forgive the repetition for clarity, it would be lunacy to try to do it ourselves).
I missed the point that Shell was not the explorer, but it's neither here nor there. By definition, Shell paid the exploration price when they bought out the exploration company.
Exactly, it has nothing to do with the agreement.
Yes some other entity took the risk on exploration, they were repaid for this risk when shell bought the rights, therefore Shell paid for that risk being taken.
"We will pay for all the costs of extraction" is just a statement with nothing to back it up.
We sell licences to explore, when there is a find this is extracted, we tax the profit
Mupper you never replied with a viable alternative, this is SF type arguing you're doing, for nothing and against everything. Improve the health service, improve the roads, improve social welfare, dont increase taxes, except on the rich.
There are a group of people that believe this is the most efficient way of maximising our benefits from our natural resources. If there is a viable alternative then lets hear it but i think its safe to say the Norwegian way is not a viable alternative, neither is an Irish state oil exploration company.
Quote from: Hardy on November 06, 2013, 05:33:04 PM
Muppet, stop trivialising the discussion by making up arguments to win and characterising them as mine. You don't genuinely think I'm concerned about Shell's comfort. You certainly can't think it after I've explained the substantive point for the fifth time. So please stop stating it.
But, on the off chance you've missed the point, replace Shell (and everyone else by the same argument) "fecking off somewhere else" with our not getting the gas revenues (because, forgive the repetition for clarity, it would be lunacy to try to do it ourselves).
I missed the point that Shell was not the explorer, but it's neither here nor there. By definition, Shell paid the exploration price when they bought out the exploration company.
The original explorer (I accept the name doesn't matter - but it has to be someone) who took on most of the risk was Enterprise Oil. This was a British State company (irony of ironies) set up to explore British Gas fields until Margaret Thatcher privatised it. Enterprise Oil found the Corrib field. It was bought out in 2002 by Shell.
You argue that Shell paid the exploration price, which is certainly arguable. But at the time Enterprise Oil had 41 fields, and was sold for £3.5bn. Corrib was only one such field. I honestly have no idea how valuable the other fields were but I doubt the only value was in Corrib. Either way Shell knew exactly what they were getting into and were hardly taking a big risk. Again I agree the name Shell is irrelevant, but arguing that we must offer everything we have to incentivise exploration is moot in this case. The blind exploration was over.
Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?
Just now I started Googling Brazil's recent oil finds.
It is embarrassing.
The Brazilian Libra field is in water 16.6 times deeper than Corrib (5000m versus 300m) and the Brazilians are '
auctioning' the rights to part of it. Shell is expected to be among the bidders
[/quote]
Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?
[/quote]
Muppet any cost which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession is allowed to be written off against tax in Ireland.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 06, 2013, 08:21:41 PM
Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?
[/quote]
Muppet any cost which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession is allowed to be written off against tax in Ireland.
[/quote]
I know it wasn't a great point, but nicely fits the heads they win, tails you lose line.
Am I right in saying that most normal businesses cannot write off all Capital Expenditure against tax later?
Was your blank quote at the top of your reply a dig at the fact that I cannot for the life of me work the quote feature on this board after 7 years of the current board! :)
All allowable Capital expenditure is allowed to be written off against tax on profits over agreed periods (the term differs depending on the type of expenditure) they are called capital allowances. Even if you don't make a profit you can carry the "unused" allowances forward and write them off over future profits.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 06, 2013, 08:43:02 PM
Was your blank quote at the top of your reply a dig at the fact that I cannot for the life of me work the quote feature on this board after 7 years of the current board! :)
All allowable Capital expenditure is allowed to be written off against tax on profits over agreed periods (the term differs depending on the type of expenditure) they are called capital allowances. Even if you don't make a profit you can carry the "unused" allowances forward and write them off over future profits.
We had this discussion much earlier on the thread.
My understanding is that Shell will not pay the 25% tax until all extraction costs have been deducted. So Ireland's 25% tax rate is along way off yielding any income.
No you asked the question "Am I right in saying that most normal businesses cannot write off all Capital Expenditure against tax later?" I answered it.
Your second question (and I am fairly sure you already know the answer) My understanding is that Shell will not pay the 25% tax until all extraction costs have been deducted. So Ireland's 25% tax rate is along way off yielding any income.
A company in Ireland will only pay tax on it's taxable profits from any operation based in the State. That's it.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 06, 2013, 09:39:53 PM
No you asked the question "Am I right in saying that most normal businesses cannot write off all Capital Expenditure against tax later?" I answered it.
Your second question (and I am fairly sure you already know the answer) My understanding is that Shell will not pay the 25% tax until all extraction costs have been deducted. So Ireland's 25% tax rate is along way off yielding any income.
A company in Ireland will only pay tax on it's taxable profits from any operation based in the State. That's it.
Ok I am being serious, I don't know the answer and I would appreciate someone explain gin it to me.
What is the difference in layman's terms between what Shell can write off in this case of gas extraction, and what any normal business can write off in any other business?
None is my understanding. All companies pay tax on their taxable profits as they are assessed under our tax laws.
I know you have been around the houses with others but I will give it a go.
Company A. Buys and sells fish. Buys fish for 50 euro sells fish for 100. pays wages 10 euro, Capital allowances on capital expenditure of factory 10 euro, nothing else. pays tax on taxable profit 100-50-10-10.. taxed on 30 euro profit.
Company B (start up company) Buys and sells fish. Buys fish for 90 euro sells fish for 100. pays wages 20 euro. Capital allowances on capital expenditure of factory 10 euro nothing else. no profit no tax to pay. carries loss forward to next year, can write loss off against any profit next year. capital allowances also carried forward
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 06, 2013, 10:23:06 PM
None is my understanding. All companies pay tax on their taxable profits as they are assessed under our tax laws.
I know you have been around the houses with others but I will give it a go.
Company A. Buys and sells fish. Buys fish for 50 euro sells fish for 100. pays wages 10 euro, Capital allowances on capital expenditure of factory 10 euro, nothing else. pays tax on taxable profit 100-50-10-10.. taxed on 30 euro profit.
Company B (start up company) Buys and sells fish. Buys fish for 90 euro sells fish for 100. pays wages 20 euro. Capital allowances on capital expenditure of factory 10 euro nothing else. no profit no tax to pay. carries loss forward to next year, can write loss off against any profit next year. capital allowances also carried forward
Ok thanks for that.
But both your cases they have a Capital Allowance of €10 and in Case A there is actually tax paid.
My understanding is that there will be no tax paid until all costs are paid off first. I guess I am really asking is that the norm? I would have assumed that most businesses don't get to pay off all costs, loans etc, up front. But if you tell me they do then fair enough.
Hound posted this on another thread:
Quote from: Hound on September 10, 2013, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: CiKe on September 10, 2013, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 09, 2013, 06:15:46 PM
In Ireland if you strike oil or gas, you don't pay tax until everything is paid off. That means you take our oil or gas, and sell it, paying no tax, until you have paid off all of your own costs.
Is that true? Would Initial setup costs not be considered CAPEX and not operating expenses? In which case it wouldn't impact P+L at inception - there would just be change in Balance Sheet and a cash outflow. I would imagine that as soon as they start pumping then they have expenses and revenues and tax would be charged on the profits. Are you telling me that companies In Ireland won't pay tax until all infrastructure costs are recovered? That sounds odd.
CiKe, the rules for petroleum companies are different. All their capital expenditure in terms of exploring for offshore oil and gas is allowable in the same way as operating expenses. Bear in mind, this isn't an Irish thing. Irish and UK rules are very similar, and in Norway the deductions are more generous - for every €100k capital expenditure you have, you actually get a tax allowance of €130k.
None of Ireland, UK or Norway charge a royalty for oil/gas extracted. Tax is only charged on profits in all 3 countries (i.e. after all costs incurred are taken into account). Some countries do charge a royalty.
The question is, from a policy standpoint, do we want to attract oil companies to Ireland to invest and explore for oil, or do we want to leave the oil in the ground?
There are numerous reasons why Norway and UK are more attractive to exploration companies (much better record of success, easier planning/regulatory regimes, better infratrcuture thus lower exploration/exploitation costs, and Norway has the additional advantage that the state effectively underwrites 78% of your costs).
The advantage Ireland currently has is the 25%-40% tax rate compared to UK 62% and Norway's 78%.
But at the moment it hasn't proven successful. In recent licensing rounds, Norway and UK still get far more interest than Ireland, particularly from larger companies.
Like I said I am not an accountant so my understanding is pretty blurred.
We follow international norms in method of calculating taxable profits for petroleum companies. Capital expenditure on exploration activities is treated similarly to operating expenditure.
I believe the logic around it is that offshore capex has no enduring benefit or value beyond the field in which it is placed.
Norway, UK and (I presume) the rest of the OECD all use similar rules in allowing capital expenditure (Norway actually gives a 130% deduction).
Quote from: Hound on November 07, 2013, 07:16:50 AM
We follow international norms in method of calculating taxable profits for petroleum companies. Capital expenditure on exploration activities is treated similarly to operating expenditure.
I believe the logic around it is that offshore capex has no enduring benefit or value beyond the field in which it is placed.
Norway, UK and (I presume) the rest of the OECD all use similar rules in allowing capital expenditure (Norway actually gives a 130% deduction).
And can Shell write off their
onshore Capex?
The simplest way to look at this is to ask what is a reasonable discount to give to whoever finds and extracts an oil or gas field.
The answer can be as a percentage, cents in the euro/dollar or whatever. Or even in a range. The problem for me is that I see vague references (and I am also talking about Government officials even recently) to international norms, yet when any international benchmark is pointed to, people like me get told that we can't benchmark against that one. (e.g Norway/UK etc).
But what would Hound and Hardy and anyone else see as a reasonable discount considering everything you wish to consider?
This is a serious question. It might measure the differences between us in a simple non-controversial way.
All companies are allowed write off all capital expenditure against their profits.
If my company buys a boiler for €1000 we will be allowed a deduction against our profits in order to come to our taxable profits of one eight (12.5% capital allowance) of the cost of the boiler. This happens for eight years until the cost of the asset has been fully written off against tax.
If my company buys an energy efficient approved boiler for €1000 then the we receive a 100% deduction for the capital expenditure in year 1. The asset is written off (for taxes purposes in year 1)
Both companies receive a capital allowance for capital expenditure. The amount is exactly the same, €1000, it just is accelerated in the second option.
If both companies made profits before tax of 10000 per annum each year for eight straight years and the tax rate did not change they would pay exactly the same amount of tax over the total of those eight years.
The same applies to exploration companies. They get their capital allowances upfront.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 07, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
All companies are allowed write off all capital expenditure against their profits.
If my company buys a boiler for €1000 we will be allowed a deduction against our profits in order to come to our taxable profits of one eight (12.5% capital allowance) of the cost of the boiler. This happens for eight years until the cost of the asset has been fully written off against tax.
If my company buys an energy efficient approved boiler for €1000 then the we receive a 100% deduction for the capital expenditure in year 1. The asset is written off (for taxes purposes in year 1)
Both companies receive a capital allowance for capital expenditure. The amount is exactly the same, €1000, it just is accelerated in the second option.
If both companies made profits before tax of 10000 per annum each year for eight straight years and the tax rate did not change they would pay exactly the same amount of tax over the total of those eight years.
The same applies to exploration companies. They get their capital allowances upfront.
Ok thanks for explaining it to me.
Quote from: muppet on November 07, 2013, 05:10:31 PM
The simplest way to look at this is to ask what is a reasonable discount to give to whoever finds and extracts an oil or gas field.
I think the difference is that you have the outlook of how much can we get off them, whereas for me I want to attract them in.
There's nobody making any money at the moment out of oil and gas in Ireland.
The two best opportunities out there at the moment are Corrib (Shell) and Barryroe (Providence). But both have sunk so much money into them that they'll do well to make a profit out of it.
So I think a tax rate of 25%-40% is fine for now. Be great if for instance Corrib ended up being a success story, that after a couple of years of gas being brought onshore that people on the West coast were of a one mind that actually, this isnt a bad thing, its a very good thing. And that the big players would see that Ireland is a credible location for exploration activities and maybe there is a few bob to be made over there. If we could get 10 or 12 successful Corribs/Barrroes up and running and create a proper industry over here, the country (particularly the west coast) could be transformed. Thousands of jobs on good salaries.
Putting up 50%/60%/70% tax rates or percentage royalties off the top would simply be putting a barrier up against the creation of an oil/gas industry.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on November 07, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
If my company buys a boiler for €1000 we will be allowed a deduction against our profits in order to come to our taxable profits of one eight (12.5% capital allowance) of the cost of the boiler. This happens for eight years until the cost of the asset has been fully written off against tax.
If my company buys an energy efficient approved boiler for €1000 then the we receive a 100% deduction for the capital expenditure in year 1. The asset is written off (for taxes purposes in year 1)
Both companies receive a capital allowance for capital expenditure. The amount is exactly the same, €1000, it just is accelerated in the second option.
I almost get this, but not quite. Using your example and assuming profits per annum are the same in both cases for the same length of time, what is the cash benefit to the company of having the deduction applied in year one rather than spread across eight?
Quote from: Hound on November 08, 2013, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 07, 2013, 05:10:31 PM
The simplest way to look at this is to ask what is a reasonable discount to give to whoever finds and extracts an oil or gas field.
I think the difference is that you have the outlook of how much can we get off them, whereas for me I want to attract them in.
There's nobody making any money at the moment out of oil and gas in Ireland.
The two best opportunities out there at the moment are Corrib (Shell) and Barryroe (Providence). But both have sunk so much money into them that they'll do well to make a profit out of it.
So I think a tax rate of 25%-40% is fine for now. Be great if for instance Corrib ended up being a success story, that after a couple of years of gas being brought onshore that people on the West coast were of a one mind that actually, this isnt a bad thing, its a very good thing. And that the big players would see that Ireland is a credible location for exploration activities and maybe there is a few bob to be made over there. If we could get 10 or 12 successful Corribs/Barrroes up and running and create a proper industry over here, the country (particularly the west coast) could be transformed. Thousands of jobs on good salaries.
Putting up 50%/60%/70% tax rates or percentage royalties off the top would simply be putting a barrier up against the creation of an oil/gas industry.
I think this is it in a nutshell (sorry).
I see our resources as being for sale. You and the various writers of National policy see the priority as being getting the big companies in.
If we ignore oil and gas for a second this 'getting the m in' has been National policy in other areas as well. For example it has been the modus operandi of the IFSC. This is not without its major successes obviously, but blindly following the mantra and being friendly to the financial industry led to 'light touch regulation' which led to serious problems.
We see very light touch regulation in our Aviation sector also, 'to get them in'. Alitalia and other Italian airlines register most of their aircraft in Ireland while recently we have seen the rapidly growing Norwegian Shuttle, surely Ryanair's biggest competitor in the next few years, seek to base its operation in Ireland: http://atwonline.com/finance-amp-data/norwegian-air-shuttle-considers-irish-aoc-us-base (http://atwonline.com/finance-amp-data/norwegian-air-shuttle-considers-irish-aoc-us-base).
Getting them in is fine, I don't have any ideological objection to it, but it cannot be at the cost of selling out on everything. The oil/gas to me seems to be the worst area for this because, unlike the Financial and Aviation sectors, for once we actually have something tangible to sell.
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Very little. There will be 50 permanent jobs, which is obviously useful, but does it justify a €3.4bn tax write-off and free raw material (the gas)?.
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Why would it pay corporation tax before it makes a profit?
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Very little. There will be 50 permanent jobs, which is obviously useful, but does it justify a €3.4bn tax write-off and free raw material (the gas)?.
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Have you figures?
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Why would it pay corporation tax before it makes a profit?
They have a unique deal to write off all of their capital costs & get all of their raw material without royalties. We have had this out before on this thread.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 03:15:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Very little. There will be 50 permanent jobs, which is obviously useful, but does it justify a €3.4bn tax write-off and free raw material (the gas)?.
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Have you figures?
Yes, the State invested €64bn in the collapsed banking system. A €3.4bn investment would have been buttons by comparison.
As for State policing, €16m by the end of last year: http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/)
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:10:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Why would it pay corporation tax before it makes a profit?
They have a unique deal to write off all of their capital costs & get all of their raw material without royalties. We have had this out before on this thread.
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:23:13 PM
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Have you figures?
[/quote]
As for State policing,
€16m by the end of last year: http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/)
[/quote]
That is an absolute disgrace as was the way the protesters were treated, manhandled etc.
How long have you to wait for a Garda to call if you're house was burgled etc?
And then our Gas is being given free to these Companies.....
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 03:15:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Very little. There will be 50 permanent jobs, which is obviously useful, but does it justify a €3.4bn tax write-off and free raw material (the gas)?.
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Have you figures?
Yes, the State invested €64bn in the collapsed banking system. A €3.4bn investment would have been buttons by comparison.
As for State policing, €16m by the end of last year: http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/)
[/quote
What has our failed banking system got to do with the cost of gas extraction. Where did you get the Garda costs from and is there a breakdown as to what the Corporations contributed. Do the Garda not pay tax on their income?
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 04:27:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 03:15:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 01:34:45 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 11:09:56 AM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on October 02, 2014, 09:37:31 AM
Accounts show Mayo gas field richer than originally thought
There's more gas off the coast of Co Mayo than originally estimated, according to an offshore sub-sea survey in the Corrib gas field.
Commercial gas is set to flow from the field in the middle of next year after a series of delays.
The partners in the project — Shell, Statoil and Vermilion — are expected to spend an additional €300m on the project this year to bring the total spend to €3.4 bn by year's end.
Now, new accounts filed Canadian-based firm, Vermilion Energy Ireland Ltd — show that the volume of gas at peak production will be 8% more than originally believed.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/accounts-show-mayo-gas-field-richer-than-originally-thought-643885.html)
Great news. Think of all that extra taxation we're going to accrue off that 8%. ::)
Where would the state have found the €3.4 billion invested already?
Why do we have to invest €3.4 billion today?
Since you were been sardonic around the extra 8% I assume you think that we should levy for more tax on the gas. But since 3 corporations have invested €3.4 billion based on agreements with the Irish government do we just renege on the exploration and extraction agreements and ignore their investment or do you think we should renegotiate? What do you think the consequences would be if we reneged or changed the terms?
We won't get a cent until the €3.4bn is paid off.
Is any of that €3.4bn gone to towards local infrastructure, PAYE, VAT etc?
Very little. There will be 50 permanent jobs, which is obviously useful, but does it justify a €3.4bn tax write-off and free raw material (the gas)?.
Also, the State has paid a fortune in policing the whole thing.
Have you figures?
Yes, the State invested €64bn in the collapsed banking system. A €3.4bn investment would have been buttons by comparison.
As for State policing, €16m by the end of last year: http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/corrib-gas-pipeline-shell-protests-costs-1216937-Dec2013/)
[/quote
What has our failed banking system got to do with the cost of gas extraction. Where did you get the Garda costs from and is there a breakdown as to what the Corporations contributed. Do the Garda not pay tax on their income?
The bank collapse puts into perspective the cost of investment into our oil/gas reserves. The spin for decades has been that we both hadn't the expertise and that we couldn't afford it. Well obviously we could afford it. We had put €5b into Anglo before we even privatised it.
The Gárda costs came from the newspaper article I linked. And Yes, unlike Shell apparently, the Garda pay tax on all of their incomes.
Too many quotes. That link doesn't tell us how much was funded by the corporations though so what is the true cost of the policing?
A profit has yet to be earned so what taxes should be paid?
Stopping a banking system collapse and investing in oil/gas exploration are not the same thing and your reaching trying to co-relate, how much has been spent on failed exploration licenses? What if we spent billions on failed attempts to bring oil/gas in, what you say about the government in that instance?
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 02, 2014, 05:58:06 PM
Too many quotes. That link doesn't tell us how much was funded by the corporations though so what is the true cost of the policing?
AFAIK Shell don't pay for the Garda and even if they did, they would simply write it off against tax so again the tax-payer would pay.
Quote
A profit has yet to be earned so what taxes should be paid?
Royalties should be paid on the gas, tax on the income with reasonable allowances for investment. We shed crocodile tears for those who emigrate, yet if they stayed we would charge them 52% tax on their incomes, even if they were insolvent or in negative equity.
Quote
Stopping a banking system collapse and investing in oil/gas exploration are not the same thing and your reaching trying to co-relate, how much has been spent on failed exploration licenses? What if we spent billions on failed attempts to bring oil/gas in, what you say about the government in that instance?
I agree they are not the same thing. But we found €64b for the reckless banking system. What does it matter what I say about the government regarding that? Nada. Surely we could have bought out Enterprise Oil, like Shell did, and thus take no risk with exploration?
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 02, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
That is an absolute disgrace as was the way the protesters were treated, manhandled etc.
How long have you to wait for a Garda to call if you're house was burgled etc?
And then our Gas is being given free to these Companies.....
I still don't know how the government think they are mandated to sell off the country's assets without consulting the people.
Any sale should involve revenue to the public (and i dont mean government pockets) pension funds for all citizens.
Wind farms will be the next one... who will profit from that?
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
No all companies are allowed write off their allowable capital expenditure. You asked about a property rental company. I gave you some additional information about how they are taxed (hindsight I maybe shouldn't have)
I am not pro or anti Shell by the way. I am merely pointing out that Shell are acting within the tax acts. There is no special deal for them.
Should the private wind farms be treated any differently? They too have the same tax benefits. Should they pay for the wind?
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
Should the private wind farms be treated any differently? They too have the same tax benefits. Should they pay for the wind?
If they are allowed to go ahead (which they should be) profits should go to the people, not government coffers.
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
No all companies are allowed write off their allowable capital expenditure. You asked about a property rental company. I gave you some additional information about how they are taxed (hindsight I maybe shouldn't have)
I am not pro or anti Shell by the way. I am merely pointing out that Shell are acting within the tax acts. There is no special deal for them.
Should the private wind farms be treated any differently? They too have the same tax benefits. Should they pay for the wind?
I know you are sincere, all your posts have been.
But again I don't understand. My company spends money acquiring fixed assets for my business and I can't write off that cost against tax. But another company can? What is the difference?
BTW I see no comparison with wind and gas in this debate. Unless you manage to sell wind containers or charge for air.
If someone told you that if you spent €3.4 billion you would gain income of more than double that figure what would you do? Even the dumbasses in the Government reckoned the gas was worth €8 billion back in 2008.
The chat here is depressing and it's easy to see how as a nation we continue to blink first. "If we don't give them ridiculous sweetneners they'll leave the gas in the ground" . It's like "if we tax the well off they'll all leave and we'll have no jobs" or if we didn't bail out the bank we'd be kicked out of the EU". Why have we such a tradition of doffing the cap to "our betters"? Sickens my hole.
Muppet - most companies can write off their fixed assets over usually 8 years. If oil companies are allowed write their fixed assets off over a shorter period that would be special and beneficial treatment.
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
No all companies are allowed write off their allowable capital expenditure. You asked about a property rental company. I gave you some additional information about how they are taxed (hindsight I maybe shouldn't have)
I am not pro or anti Shell by the way. I am merely pointing out that Shell are acting within the tax acts. There is no special deal for them.
Should the private wind farms be treated any differently? They too have the same tax benefits. Should they pay for the wind?
I know you are sincere, all your posts have been.
But again I don't understand. My company spends money acquiring fixed assets for my business and I can't write off that cost against tax. But another company can? What is the difference?
BTW I see no comparison with wind and gas in this debate. Unless you manage to sell wind containers or charge for air.
The cost of Property is generally
not allowed to be written off against income (for tax purposes), with the exception of what are know as Industrial Buildings. (A factory for example) There are some other types of properties which qualify for this relief, nursing homes, palliative care units.
For me, one important difference is that a manufacturing company who comes here and writes off capital costs against profits has the choice to set up that facility practically anywhere in the world (assuming availability of skills). An exploration company however, can't extract the natural resources from anywhere in the world and so should be subject to more stringent tax regulations
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 10:09:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 02, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on October 02, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
It is not a unique deal, all companies can write off their capital expenditure against their profits.
I still don't get this, even though you kindly tried twice on this thread alone.
If I set up a company and buy (with cash or borrowed money it doesn't seem to matter) 10 houses and subsequently rent them, does my company pay any tax on the rental income, or can my company pay myself (or the bank) back the entire cost of the 10 purchases before I pay any tax?
Serious question btw.
It's a very unrelated question I give you that.
A company who deals in property is generally treated as an investment company, they are taxed slightly differently from normal companies. Management expenses are allowed (rates, insurance, interest on loans etc) but there are restrictions on directors salaries.
That is all fine, but you said all companies. The nuances are lost on me here, or am I missing something that is obvious to everyone else?
No all companies are allowed write off their allowable capital expenditure. You asked about a property rental company. I gave you some additional information about how they are taxed (hindsight I maybe shouldn't have)
I am not pro or anti Shell by the way. I am merely pointing out that Shell are acting within the tax acts. There is no special deal for them.
Should the private wind farms be treated any differently? They too have the same tax benefits. Should they pay for the wind?
I know you are sincere, all your posts have been.
But again I don't understand. My company spends money acquiring fixed assets for my business and I can't write off that cost against tax. But another company can? What is the difference?
BTW I see no comparison with wind and gas in this debate. Unless you manage to sell wind containers or charge for air.
The cost of Property is generally not allowed to be written off against income (for tax purposes), with the exception of what are know as Industrial Buildings. (A factory for example) There are some other types of properties which qualify for this relief, nursing homes, palliative care units.
Ok thanks guys, I have a better idea. There are categories of property, some which qualify and some which don't.
We could be taxing the oil/gas to the hilt and still some people would whinge and moan, that is what modern Ireland has become. That is the most obvious thing on this thread.
How much has been spent on oil/gas exploration and how much profit has been made off these wonderful natural resources? Has anyone got these figures? If we are so generous why aren't the oil companies queuing at our door?
Billions has been spent exploring Ireland's seascape by oil corporations yet Ireland, which as no oil refining culture (we have one oil refinery and that's up for sale and is struggling to find a buyer, kinda tells you what the market things of our oil resources), should suddenly spend billions exploring and further billions developing infrastructure to support it!!! Personally I had no strong opinions either way on Shell to Sea but would despair if I saw billions of money been diverted on pipe dreams...
Anyhow as you were with populist ideals....
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 12:06:52 AM
We could be taxing the oil/gas to the hilt and still some people would whinge and moan, that is what modern Ireland has become. That is the most obvious thing on this thread.
How much has been spent on oil/gas exploration and how much profit has been made off these wonderful natural resources? Has anyone got these figures? If we are so generous why aren't the oil companies queuing at our door?
Billions has been spent exploring Ireland's seascape by oil corporations yet Ireland, which as no oil refining culture (we have one oil refinery and that's up for sale and is struggling to find a buyer, kinda tells you what the market things of our oil resources), should suddenly spend billions exploring and further billions developing infrastructure to support it!!! Personally I had no strong opinions either way on Shell to Sea but would despair if I saw billions of money been diverted on pipe dreams...
Anyhow as you were with populist ideals....
A bit of a whinging / moaning post there yourself dinny tbf.
You seem to be starting from the viewpoint that we need to get this resource up and out of the ground as soon as possible - we don't. If Shell had the option of a better field in which to drill in another country, they'd be gone in a shot so it can't be that bad out there. I don't believe we should drill for this ourselves but we certainly should have more of a stake in what comes out of the ground.
Of the 3.4Bn spent, how much of it would you estimate has actually remained in the Irish economy? The tax receipts from the workers, purchase of some basic building supplies, a multiplier effect to the local economy, probably some other things that I'm missing. The largest fraction of the money will have been spent outside the country buying drilling equipment, surveying software, piping, etc - no benefit to our economy and yet can be written off against profits made here.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 03, 2014, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 12:06:52 AM
We could be taxing the oil/gas to the hilt and still some people would whinge and moan, that is what modern Ireland has become. That is the most obvious thing on this thread.
How much has been spent on oil/gas exploration and how much profit has been made off these wonderful natural resources? Has anyone got these figures? If we are so generous why aren't the oil companies queuing at our door?
Billions has been spent exploring Ireland's seascape by oil corporations yet Ireland, which as no oil refining culture (we have one oil refinery and that's up for sale and is struggling to find a buyer, kinda tells you what the market things of our oil resources), should suddenly spend billions exploring and further billions developing infrastructure to support it!!! Personally I had no strong opinions either way on Shell to Sea but would despair if I saw billions of money been diverted on pipe dreams...
Anyhow as you were with populist ideals....
A bit of a whinging / moaning post there yourself dinny tbf.
You seem to be starting from the viewpoint that we need to get this resource up and out of the ground as soon as possible - we don't. If Shell had the option of a better field in which to drill in another country, they'd be gone in a shot so it can't be that bad out there. I don't believe we should drill for this ourselves but we certainly should have more of a stake in what comes out of the ground.
Of the 3.4Bn spent, how much of it would you estimate has actually remained in the Irish economy? The tax receipts from the workers, purchase of some basic building supplies, a multiplier effect to the local economy, probably some other things that I'm missing. The largest fraction of the money will have been spent outside the country buying drilling equipment, surveying software, piping, etc - no benefit to our economy and yet can be written off against profits made here.
I am not of that opinion, I am of neutral opinion, I have yet to see a feasible alternative offered to the current exploration model that is not populist idealism.
I think people are unhappy with the seemingly small percentage return on the gas.
Yes the oil/ gas companies have to front the money, but only do so after knowing the costs and the amount of projected minimum profit.
Their figures added up to enable them to proceed and they can write off as much as they can after creating accounting practices.
The 8% that the Irish exchequer stands to gain could be feck all after the accountants do their bit.
Its something that we have no real control over.
same for all commercial companies though.
However for such large figures and supposed profit, we would like to see us receiving a bit of a return as well as a good few more local jobs (though the knock on effect in local economy would hopefully be reasonably positive).
The policing of this was poor alright.
I cant recall what percentage of the spoils that I heard the Norwegian gov took from their version of this (am I even getting the country correct!). But after creative accounting, even 50% might ad up to total 15 euros!!!!!
I read somewhere that the Norwegian Govt have a sovereign fund of around €500Bn from their Oil Royalties.
Norway has consistently reviewed and changed licenses/taxes after the first initial discovery, essentially there are many different approaches to Oil/Gas exploration and extraction and taxation. There is no reason to believe that if we have resources that can be exploited that we won't find a model that suits us.
Thought this article interesting in particular, the comment below
http://www.arcticgas.gov/norway%E2%80%99s-different-approach-to-oil-and-gas-development (http://www.arcticgas.gov/norway%E2%80%99s-different-approach-to-oil-and-gas-development)
Quote
Norway allows producers relatively quick recovery of their capital costs with a six-year depreciation schedule for tax purposes (quicker than the U.S. federal government and Alaska allow in corporate income taxes, but slower than Alaska allows as a deduction against its production tax). In addition, companies also can write off from the 50 percent offshore production tax an extra 30 percent of their investment spread over four years - essentially a tax credit for uplift investment. Alaska producers can earn tax credits of 20 percent to 40 percent for similar capital expenditures.
The high tax rate, plus the additional investment credit, means that for every dollar a producer invests in Norway, it saves 93 cents on its taxes - pretty similar to the total tax break allowed by the U.S. and Alaska tax codes.
It's a lot easier to get oil out of the North Sea as well.
Norway did it properly. I am sure they could point to even better ways of doing it but they are light years ahead of our give away. As the following emphasises:
http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/ (http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/)
From Reuters
AALESUND, Norway, Oct 2 (Reuters) – Norway's $855 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will focus its future real estate acquisitions on booming global cities, its deputy chief said on Thursday.
The fund, which owns on average 1.3 percent of all listed companies worldwide, invests 1.2 percent of its holdings in real estate but aims to increase that stake to 5 percent over time.
The much maligned Charlie McCreevy started a fund (National Pension Reserve Fund) that was probably our equivalent. But the ECB/IMF insisted we emptied it into the banks.
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
Norway did it properly. I am sure they could point to even better ways of doing it but they are light years ahead of our give away. As the following emphasises:
http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/ (http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/)
From Reuters
AALESUND, Norway, Oct 2 (Reuters) – Norway's $855 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will focus its future real estate acquisitions on booming global cities, its deputy chief said on Thursday.
The fund, which owns on average 1.3 percent of all listed companies worldwide, invests 1.2 percent of its holdings in real estate but aims to increase that stake to 5 percent over time.
The much maligned Charlie McCreevy started a fund (National Pension Reserve Fund) that was probably our equivalent. But the ECB/IMF insisted we emptied it into the banks.
It took time for them to get it right and they had a queue of investors, BP pulled out of Irish exploration after spending €120m. Are our resources over-hammed? Seems to me we are not in a particular strong position due to the lack of progress in finding suitable fields and the costs of extraction. Norway didn't make massive profits off the first fields that were commercially viable either, plus the oil crisis in the 80s drove their market upwards, a very favourable circumstance.
You are obsessed with the banks.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
Norway did it properly. I am sure they could point to even better ways of doing it but they are light years ahead of our give away. As the following emphasises:
http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/ (http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/)
From Reuters
AALESUND, Norway, Oct 2 (Reuters) – Norway's $855 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will focus its future real estate acquisitions on booming global cities, its deputy chief said on Thursday.
The fund, which owns on average 1.3 percent of all listed companies worldwide, invests 1.2 percent of its holdings in real estate but aims to increase that stake to 5 percent over time.
The much maligned Charlie McCreevy started a fund (National Pension Reserve Fund) that was probably our equivalent. But the ECB/IMF insisted we emptied it into the banks.
It took time for them to get it right and they had a queue of investors, BP pulled out of Irish exploration after spending €120m. Are our resources over-hammed? Seems to me we are not in a particular strong position due to the lack of progress in finding suitable fields and the costs of extraction. Norway didn't make massive profits off the first fields that were commercially viable either, plus the oil crisis in the 80s drove their market upwards, a very favourable circumstance.
You are obsessed with the banks.
BP's €120m sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. They were fined €18bn for the oil spill.
You sound like Tony.
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
Norway did it properly. I am sure they could point to even better ways of doing it but they are light years ahead of our give away. As the following emphasises:
http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/ (http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/)
From Reuters
AALESUND, Norway, Oct 2 (Reuters) – Norway's $855 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will focus its future real estate acquisitions on booming global cities, its deputy chief said on Thursday.
The fund, which owns on average 1.3 percent of all listed companies worldwide, invests 1.2 percent of its holdings in real estate but aims to increase that stake to 5 percent over time.
The much maligned Charlie McCreevy started a fund (National Pension Reserve Fund) that was probably our equivalent. But the ECB/IMF insisted we emptied it into the banks.
It took time for them to get it right and they had a queue of investors, BP pulled out of Irish exploration after spending €120m. Are our resources over-hammed? Seems to me we are not in a particular strong position due to the lack of progress in finding suitable fields and the costs of extraction. Norway didn't make massive profits off the first fields that were commercially viable either, plus the oil crisis in the 80s drove their market upwards, a very favourable circumstance.
You are obsessed with the banks.
BP's €120m sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. They were fined €18bn for the oil spill.
You sound like Tony.
Harsh!
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 12:05:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 03, 2014, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 11:48:40 AM
Norway did it properly. I am sure they could point to even better ways of doing it but they are light years ahead of our give away. As the following emphasises:
http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/ (http://www.biznews.com/property/2014/10/sovereign-wealth-fund-places-big-bet-city-residential-property/)
From Reuters
AALESUND, Norway, Oct 2 (Reuters) – Norway's $855 billion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will focus its future real estate acquisitions on booming global cities, its deputy chief said on Thursday.
The fund, which owns on average 1.3 percent of all listed companies worldwide, invests 1.2 percent of its holdings in real estate but aims to increase that stake to 5 percent over time.
The much maligned Charlie McCreevy started a fund (National Pension Reserve Fund) that was probably our equivalent. But the ECB/IMF insisted we emptied it into the banks.
It took time for them to get it right and they had a queue of investors, BP pulled out of Irish exploration after spending €120m. Are our resources over-hammed? Seems to me we are not in a particular strong position due to the lack of progress in finding suitable fields and the costs of extraction. Norway didn't make massive profits off the first fields that were commercially viable either, plus the oil crisis in the 80s drove their market upwards, a very favourable circumstance.
You are obsessed with the banks.
BP's €120m sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. They were fined €18bn for the oil spill.
You sound like Tony.
Harsh!
He calls me obsessed too. ;)
Argghh.
Jebus, just think about that!
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 12:00:06 PM
[You are obsessed with the banks.
BP's €120m sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. [/quote]
We should be all obsessed with the fcukin banks seeing as we all paid paid about €15,000 each to bail the fcukers out.
€120m pales in comparison to €64Bn.
Looks like there's hope for the Shell to Sea crowd. The largest vessel the world has ever seen (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30394137) is being built to liquify natural gas off the coast of Australia so that they don't have to do it ashore. It's nearly half a kilometre long!
QuotePainted a brilliant red, Prelude looms over the Samsung Heavy Industries shipyard on Geoje Island in South Korea, its sides towering like cliffs, the workforce ant-like in comparison.
Soon after dawn, groups of workers - electricians, scaffolders, welders - gather for exercises and team-building before entering lifts that carry them the equivalent of ten storeys up.
It's worth watching the video in that report. A 50,000 ton module is lifted into place in one piece. I would want to be standing underneath that!
An amazing piece of engineering by the Samsung shipyard.
Is this all done and dusted?
A friend of mine is going to work for Shell in Mayo.
Shell seem to be doing a lot of ads on radio at the moment - was the time for good PR not 15 years ago?? What's the benefit of doing it now?
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2015, 12:01:23 PM
Shell seem to be doing a lot of ads on radio at the moment - was the time for good PR not 15 years ago?? What's the benefit of doing it now?
After their disastrous arrival they have spent a lot of time and money trying to undo the damage. They have done a lot of good work since, but as you say, the time to do it was 15 years ago. The clowns that showed up at the start, and pissed off the sleepiest part of Ireland, should be made to hold poorly padded bags at All-Blacks training as punishment.
And the gas is finally flowing.
A metaphor for 2016 in general, let's hope.
State approved theft.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gas-flaring-at-corrib-plant-frightening-says-resident-1.2482377
Ah sure isn't it great to see so many people get employment in an area with no chance of work otherwise?
Just think of all the TAX this will bring in in revenue to the country.
Oh the good days are rolling!
Quote from: From the Bunker on January 02, 2016, 06:11:31 PM
Ah sure isn't it great to see so many people get employment in an area with no chance of work otherwise?
Just think of all the TAX this will bring in in revenue to the country.
Oh the good days are rolling!
Will nobody think of the garda overtime!
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on January 02, 2016, 06:16:00 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on January 02, 2016, 06:11:31 PM
Ah sure isn't it great to see so many people get employment in an area with no chance of work otherwise?
Just think of all the TAX this will bring in in revenue to the country.
Oh the good days are rolling!
Will nobody think of the garda overtime!
Not to mention the improved roads in the locality! I hear the Shell boys throw a great Christmas Party as well! Can't see where all this negativity is coming from? People against progression I suppose?
So Shell are selling Corrib.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/shell-loses-about-1bn-on-corrib-foray-amid-canadian-stake-sale-1.3151980
EDITED - I had read the article incorrectly last evening and today.
if anything this decision puts to bed the argument that we were selling the family silver.
they'll get a tax right off or something
I'm sure Shell will be ok
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on July 14, 2017, 01:34:08 PM
they'll get a tax right off or something
I'm sure Shell will be ok
That's hardly the point. It's not often we're able to say a government policy (whether nobly conceived or otherwise) has been so clearly vindicated. If, as various shades of opinion across the political spectrum screamed and demanded, Shell had been saddled with a heavy tax burden, this project would never have been undertaken. The field would never have been explored and we wouldn't know whether or not viable deposits exist there.
If, as the more loonie Stalinists demanded, the state had undertaken the exploration, the 1Bn loss (probably more like 10Bn, given the relative efficiences of state vs. private enterprises) would not have been Shell's, but the Irish state's. And we couldn't have written it off against tax.
So thanks, Shell, even though your efforts were not motivated by generosity. Problem is, the terms for the next company that offers to explore off our coast will have to be more attractive than those given to Shell, if we're ever to establish, without bankrupting the state, whether or not we have viable fossil fuel resources.
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
I agree completely. This in no way vindicates (ongoing) govt policy
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
I wouldn't bother arguing business or economics with the loony left hardy. Most of these f**kers haven't worked a day in their lives.
Quote from: trileacman on July 15, 2017, 10:47:31 AM
I wouldn't bother arguing business or economics with the loony left hardy. Most of these f**kers haven't worked a day in their lives.
Who are you referring to?
Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
I haven't hear anyone suggesting anything other than a pretty high royalty on oil/gas income with possibly some equity in place of the tax breaks if successful like the Norwegian model. Anything else makes no sense. It's not just Corrib.....I'm sure Kinsale has seen a serious amount of funds leave the State that should have been captured by a sensible royalty regime. As the supply/demand equation continues to tilt and technology improves it will become more pressing......I say we sort it out now. We could put in place a proper rain day fund which would mean we'd be able for the next crash (which is undoubtedly coming as the same mistakes are getting repeated).
Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
The Canadians bought in when the hard work had been done.
Exploration in Irish waters has not been very successful, we have given away no bonanza so far. Sady. oil does not seem to as readily available as in Norway. If things improve, then the first companies who took the risk may do well and we can impose different terms on later entrants who are taking less risk.
Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
Ireland offers the second most generous terms of any nation
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 17, 2017, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
Ireland offers the second most generous terms of any nation
You don't get the point, do you?
I get your point and it's reasonably well made except for one completely inaccurate statement
Quote
We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax.
That's complete bollix
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 17, 2017, 06:45:33 PM
I get your point and it's reasonably well made except for one completely inaccurate statement
Quote
We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax.
That's complete bollix
Elaborate
The statement that we tax the arse out of them is bollix. See my previous post about the generosity of the terms we offer
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 17, 2017, 08:37:02 PM
The statement that we tax the arse out of them is bollix. See my previous post about the generosity of the terms we offer
Where are all the oil and gas companies, who surely must be jumping over each other to avail of this generosity?
So do you agree that we don't actually tax the arse out of them?
My question was first. But the fact that you can ask a question like that having read what I've posted doesn't make me expect a reasonable answer.
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 17, 2017, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.
Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).
OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?
No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.
In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.
We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.
Ireland offers the second most generous terms of any nation
Have you considered why?
Quote from: Hardy on July 17, 2017, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 17, 2017, 06:45:33 PM
I get your point and it's reasonably well made except for one completely inaccurate statement
Quote
We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax.
That's complete bollix
Elaborate
Id have thought you should be elaborating since it is your statement
Quote from: Hardy on July 17, 2017, 11:17:22 PM
My question was first. But the fact that you can ask a question like that having read what I've posted doesn't make me expect a reasonable answer.
Your question about why the oil & gas companies aren't coming is an entirely different question to what we were discussing. Let's just recap:
You said "we tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax"
I pointed out that we have the 2nd most generous terms in the world
So are you standing by your original statement?
If you want to discuss if /why exploration companies are /aren't coming, I'd be happy to do so
Look, which part of "we tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax" do you not understand?
Read carefully:
We don't impose a punitive tax regime on exploration - i.e when there's nothing to tax only losses. We apply the maximum amount of tax we can, not now, but at some future time IF, then WHEN the exploration has found resources worth exploiting. We incentivise exploration or it won't happen. We apply a Norway-style 70%, feckit 90% tax if we can get away with it, when the oil is flowing, which will never happen if the exploration doesn't happen. And which will never happen if the exploration finds nothing. Clear?
So, back to my question - why are all the oil and gas companies ignoring our supposed handout bonanza, but still exploring off Norway, 70% tax and all?
Quote from: Hardy on July 18, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
Look, which part of "we tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax" do you not understand?
Read carefully:
We don't impose a punitive tax regime on exploration - i.e when there's nothing to tax only losses. We apply the maximum amount of tax we can, not now, but at some future time IF, then WHEN the exploration has found resources worth exploiting. We incentivise exploration or it won't happen. We apply a Norway-style 70%, feckit 90% tax if we can get away with it, when the oil is flowing, which will never happen if the exploration doesn't happen. And which will never happen if the exploration finds nothing. Clear?
So, back to my question - why are all the oil and gas companies ignoring our supposed handout bonanza, but still exploring off Norway, 70% tax and all?
We may have crossed wires here Hardy - if I'm reading this post correctly you're talking about what we SHOULD do in terms of taxation rather than what we currently are doing?
Now yer suckin' diesel crude oil!
Right, fair enough so, I'd be reasonably happy with something like that. I'd be somewhat worried that by the time we reach "proof of concept", it'll turn out that all the exploration licenses are signed at the lower rate and there's nothing left to tax. I'd be in favour of some sort of cap being inserted into contracts to prevent that from happening.
I also think that the exploration companies should be required to give copies of geological surveys to the govt so that we'd know as much about what's down there as they do
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 18, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
Right, fair enough so, I'd be reasonably happy with something like that. I'd be somewhat worried that by the time we reach "proof of concept", it'll turn out that all the exploration licenses are signed at the lower rate and there's nothing left to tax. I'd be in favour of some sort of cap being inserted into contracts to prevent that from happening.
I also think that the exploration companies should be required to give copies of geological surveys to the govt so that we'd know as much about what's down there as they do
There was a Dept of Finance report a couple of years ago that confirmed this would not be the case/is not the case. We could up the royalties/tax rates in the morning on the oil/gas that is being pumped today. And we should.
some craic out in Balinaboy last night. i could clearly see the light from the flares from the gas release from my house in Ballina about 40/50 miles away, it must have been fairly unsettling if you were living locally.
I heard Maura Harrington on the radio saying this was proof the gas shouldn't have been let in FFS
An operational f**k up that will affect literally nobody
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 22, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
I heard Maura Harrington on the radio saying this was proof the gas shouldn't have been let in FFS
An operational f**k up that will affect literally nobody
Tell that to the people in ballina hospital scrambling for plumbers to switch their supply to bottled gas
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on September 23, 2017, 12:58:28 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 22, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
I heard Maura Harrington on the radio saying this was proof the gas shouldn't have been let in FFS
An operational f**k up that will affect literally nobody
Tell that to the people in ballina hospital scrambling for plumbers to switch their supply to bottled gas
There is literally nobody in Ballina hospital because of this.
They add a smell to gas so you can notice if it is leaking in your house. The gas that they let go through is mixing with the gas already in the pipeline, so its unlikely to even be odourless.
But sure post away about something you clearly know f**k all squared about
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 23, 2017, 07:51:29 PM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on September 23, 2017, 12:58:28 AM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on September 22, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
I heard Maura Harrington on the radio saying this was proof the gas shouldn't have been let in FFS
An operational f**k up that will affect literally nobody
Tell that to the people in ballina hospital scrambling for plumbers to switch their supply to bottled gas
There is literally nobody in Ballina hospital because of this.
They add a smell to gas so you can notice if it is leaking in your house. The gas that they let go through is mixing with the gas already in the pipeline, so its unlikely to even be odourless.
But sure post away about something you clearly know f**k all squared about
I will post slowly so you can understand.
There are people in ballina hospital.
They're is no gas in ballina hospital
Cue scrambling for plumbers to disconnect the mains and connect gas bottles.
Thou stated that this was an operational fk up that would affect literally nobody. It's not.
I work in oil and gas. I other countries the industry is heavily regulated however the same safe guards and processes are either not in place or not regulated in Ireland.
But sure you know better
I work in gas, in Ireland, so excuse me if I don't bow to your knowledge. In fact I've worked for regulation for the TSO
No need to disconnect the mains either, anyone can turn it off at the supply point.
I'm sure Ballina hospital has a back up, if it doesn't I'm sure nobody will die from cold, its 17 degrees today. If its the cooking I'm sure somewhere in Ballina can provide food for a couple of days. You were portraying it as there were injured people in Ballina hospital, nice and ambiguous there.
As I said this isn't a regulatory issue its an operational one. Adding odour to the gas is included in the regulations, if you want to check it out look up V5.1 of the code, page 31
the gas shall be odourised in accordance with the following specification:
- Odour intensity of 2 olfactory degrees on the SALES Scale (Ref- IGE/SR/16/1989)
So like you see its regulated, its an operational f**k up. And it will affect no one unless there is a gas leak in the couple of days this gas is in the system, that gas leak would have to be completely uncontaminated with odoured gas, does that make sense, it all goes into one big pipe, the odourless stuff is a portion of what is in that pipe, it mixes.
I don't understand the flares though. Why not just add some odour to the gas?
How does our gas regulatory regime compare to other countries. Can it be bought off like, say, our planning processes?
Will be reimporting now due to the latest fuel crisis? We don't own this right?